Congregational  Churches 


sachusetts 
Ecclesiastical  Council 
Salem,  1849 

The  Res -ill:  of  an  Ecclesias- 
tical Council. 


0x  w  m!icfr0 . 

OCT   1 


THE 


RESULT 


ECCLESIASTICAL  COUNCIL, 


COXVEXED    AT 


SALEM,  MASSACHUSETTS, 


DECEMBER  4,  1849. 


■    .  ■    ■  . 


BOSTON: 
PUBLISHED  BY  JOHN  P.  JEWETT  &  CO 

DAMRELL  &  MOORE,   PRINTERS,   16  DEVONSHIRE  ST. 

1850. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  COUNCIL. 


An  Ecclesiastical  Council  was  convened  at  the  vestry  of  Howard 
Street  Church,  December  4th,  1849,  by  letters  missive  from  Ezekiel 
Goss,  stating  that  he  is  a  member  of  the  Tabernacle  Church,  in  good 
and  regular  standing,  and  has  requested  a  letter  of  dismission,  and 
of  recommendation  to  the  Howard  Street  Church,  which  request  has 
been  refused,  that  he  has  also  requested  the  Tabernacle  Church  to 
unite  with  him  in  calling  a  mutual  council,  and  that  this  request  has 
likewise  been  refused ;  and  he  now  calls  this  council  to  examine  into 
the  case,  so  far  as  to  sustain  the  rights  of  the  churches,  and  afford 
him  the  necessary  relief. 

The  following  churches  were  represented  : 

1.  Salem  Church,  Boston. 

Rev.  Edward  Beecher,  D.D.,  Pastor, 
Dr.  Ephraim  Buck,  Delegate. 

2.  Church  in  Randolph.    ' 

Rev.  Calvin  Hitchcock,  D.D.,  Pastor, 
Dr.  Ebenezer  Alden,  Delegate. 

3.  Church  in  Middleboro\ 

Rev.  Israel  W.  Putnam,  Pastor, 
Bro.  Zechariah  Eddy,  Delegate. 

4.  Church  in  Essex. 

Rev.  R.  Crowell,  Pastor, 
Dea.  David  Choate,  Delegate. 

5.  South  Church,  Ipswich. 

Rev.  Daniel  Fitz,  Pastor, 

Bro.  Daniel  Cogswell,  Delegate. 

6.  Church  in  Hopkinton. 

Rev.  J.  C.  Webster,  Pastor, 
Bro.  J.  A.  Fitch,  Delegate. 

7.  Third  Church,  Abington. 

Rev.  H.  D.  Walker,  Pastor. 


8.  Park  Street  Church,  Boston. 

Rev.  A.  L.   Stone,  Pastor, 
Rev.  Louis  Dwight,  Delegate. 

Rev.  Mr.  Putnam  was  chosen  Moderator,  and,  in  his  absence,  Dr. 
Ephraim  Buck  was  chosen  Moderator,  pro  tempore ;  Rev.  A.  L. 
Stone  was  chosen  Scribe.  Prayer  was  offered  by  Rev.  Dr.  Hitch- 
cock. 

Rev.  Mr.  Putnam  coming  in,  declined  acting  as  Moderator,  and 
Rev.  Mr.  Crowell  was  chosen  Moderator. 

Voted,  That  the  council  is  now  ready  to  proceed  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  case  presented  in  the  letter  missive. 

Voted  to  adjourn  to  2  o'clock  in  the  afternoon.  Council  met 
agreeably  to  adjournment  at  2  o'clock. 

Documents  were  then  submitted,  showing  that  Mr.  Goss  had  re- 
quested the  Tabernacle  Church  to  unite  with  him  in  calling  a  mutual 
council  upon  his  case,  and  that  this  request  had  been  refused. 

Documents  were  also  read,  showing  that  Mr.  Goss  had  repeatedly 
asked  a  letter  of  dismission  from  the  Tabernacle  Church,  and  of 
recommendation  to  the  Howard  Street  Church,  and  that  these  re- 
quests had  been  refused. 

On  motion,  Voted,  That  council  adjourn  at  half-past  5,  to  meet 
at  half-past  6  o'clock. 

Voted,  That  the  council  hold  an  adjourned  meeting  in  the  vestry 
of  Howard  Street  Church,  on  the  18th  of  Dec.  inst.,  at  half-past  10 
o'clock,  A.M. 

Voted  to  appoint  a  committee  to  wait  upon  the  Pastor  of  the  Tab- 
ernacle Church,  and  notify  him  of  the  organization  of  the  council,  and 
of  the  case  under  consideration,  that  he  may  attend  on  behalf  of  the 
church. 

Rev.  Dr.  Beecher  and  Dr.  Alden  were  appointed  said  committee. 
The  hour  of  adjournment  having  arrived,  the  council  adjourned,  to 
meet  at  half-past  six  o'clock. 

EVENING. 

Council  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  The  committee  appointed 
to  communicate  with  the  Tabernacle  Church  reported  that  they  had 
had  an  interview  with  the  Pastor  of  that  Church,  and  that  he  was 
understood  to  decline  appearing  before  the  council,  on  the  ground 
that  no  action  of  council  was  called  for  in  the  premises. 

On  motion,  Voted,  to  advise  Mr.  Goss  to  enlarge  the  council,  by 
inviting  other  churches  at  his  discretion.     Voted  to  adjourn. 

Attest, 

A.  L.  Stone,  Scribe. 

Salem,  December  4th,  1849. 


Tuesday,  December  18. 
The  council  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  in  the  vestry  of  the 
Howard  Street  Church — Rev.  Mr.  Crowell  in  the  chair.     The  fol- 
lowing churches  were  represented : 

1.  Church  in  Essex. 

Rev.  R.  Crowell,  Pastor, 
Dea.  David  Choate,  Delegate. 

2.  Church  in  West  M  dway. 

Rev.  Jacob  Ide,  D.D.,  Pastor, 
Dea.  Daniel  Nurse,  Delegate. 

3.  Mount  Vernon,  Boston. 

Rev.  Edward  N.  Kirk,  Pastor, 
Dea.  Daniel  Safforcl,  Delegate. 

4.  Church  in  Randolph. 

Rev.  Calvin  Hitchcock,  D.D.,  Pastor. 

5.  South  Church,  Ipswich. 

Rev.  Daniel  Fitz,  Pastor, 

Bro.  Daniel  Cogswell,  Delegate. 

6.  First  Church,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  John  A.  Albro,  Pastor, 
Dea.  Charles  W.  Homer,  Delegate. 

7.  Second  Ev.  Church,  Cambridgeport. 

Rev.  J.  C.  Lovejoy,  Pastor, 
Bro.  Francis  Hunt,  Delegate. 

8.  Church  in  East  Abington. 

Rev.  H.  D.  Walker,  Pastor, 
Dea.  Elijah  Shaw,  Delegate. 

9.  Salem  Church,  Boston. 

Rev.  Edward  Beecher,  D.D.,  Pastor, 
Dr.  Ephraim  Buck,  Delegate. 

10.  First  Church  in  Ipswich. 

Rev.  David  S.  Kimball,  Pastor, 
Bro.  George  W.  Head,  Delegate. 

11.  First  Church,  Braintree, 

Rev.  R.  S.  Storrs,  D.D.,  Pastor, 
Dea.  David  Hollis,  Delegate. 

12.  Church  in  Rockport. 

Rev.  W.  Gale,  Pastor, 

Dea.  Thomas  Giles,  Delegate. 


6 

13.  Church  in  South  Reading. 

Rev.  R.  Emerson,  Pastor, 
Dr.  Poland,  Delegate. 

14.  Park  Street  Church,  Boston. 

Rev.  A.  L.  Stone,  Pastor, 
Rev.  Louis  Dwight,  Delegate. 

15.  Church  in  Hopkinton. 

Rev.  J.  C.  Webster,  Pastor, 
Bro.  J.  A.  Fitch,  Delegate. 

16.  Church  in  Middlebord*. 

Rev.  Israel  W.  Putnam,  Pastor, 
Bro.  Zechariah  Eddy,  Delegate. 

Rev.  Mr.  Crowell  resigned  his  seat  as  Moderator  of  the  Council. 
On  motion,  the  resignation  was  accepted,  and  Rev.  Reuben  Emerson 
was  chosen  Moderator.  Prayer  was  offered  by  Rev.  Mr.  Putnam. 
The  Minutes  of  the  last  session  of  the  Council  were  read  by  the 
Scribe.  On  motion,  voted,  that  a  committee  be  appointed  to  wait 
upon  the  Pastor  of  the  Tabernacle  Church,  and  inform  him  that  the 
Council  were  ready  to  hear  any  communication  from  him  in  reference 
to  the  case  under  consideration. 

Rev.  Mr.  Putnam  and  Rev.  E.  N.  Kirk  were  appointed  such  com- 
mittee. 

Voted,  That  Rev.  Mr.  Wilder  have  leave  to  appear  before  the 
Council,  and  present  the  case  of  Mr.  Goss. 

Documents  were  read,  presenting  to  the  Council  the  matters  sub- 
mitted to  the  Council  at  its  last  session. 

Voted  to  adjourn  to  2  o'clock  this  afternoon. 

Adjourned  accordingly. 

Council  met  at  two  o'clock.  Rev.  Dr.  Ide  offered  prayer.  The 
Committee  appointed  to  wait  upon  the  Pastor  of  the  Tabernacle 
Church  reported,  that  they  had  had  an  interview  with  Rev.  Dr.  Wor- 
cester, and  that  he  was  ready  to  converse  with  them  ;  that  he  declined 
appearing  before  the  Council,  or  taking  further  action  in  the  case  at 
the  present  time  ;  that  he  urged,  as  reasons  for  the  refusal  of  Mr. 
Goss's  request  of  a  letter,  the  considerations — 1.  That  Mr.  Goss  was 
not  in  good  standing ;  2.  That  the  Howard  Street  Church  was  not  in 
good  standing. 

Voted,  That  we  hear  the  doings  of  the  council  that  advised  to  the 
dissolution  of  the  Howard  Street  Church. 

Testimony  was  also  called  for  in  regard  to  the  action  of  the  church 
upon  this  advice  ;  also  the  doings  of  a  council  called  to  consider  the 
action  of  the  church  in  voting  to  dissolve  ;  also  the  action  of  the  mi- 
nority subsequent  to  the  vote  to  dissolve. 


Voted,  That  the  Council  be  by  themselves. 

The  following  Resolution  was  moved : 

Resolved,  That,  so  far  as  this  Council  is  advised  on  the  subject, 
Mr.  Goss  has  done  nothing  to  forfeit  his  standing  in  his  own  church. 

The  Resolution  was  adopted. 

Moved,  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Council  that  the  vote  of  a 
majority  cannot  dissolve  a  church  against  the  consent  of  a  minority, 
and  it  appearing  that  the  Howard  Street  Church  has  not  been  other- 
wise dissolved,  and  that  the  minority  claim  membership  therein,  and 
have  acted,  and  still  act,  as  that  Church,  and  sustain  its  meetings, 
the  ordinances  and  ministry,  this  Council  advise  that  that  Church  has 
not  been  dissolved,  but  still  exists  on  its  original  foundation. 

The  question  was  taken  by  ayes  and  noes ;  when  it  appeared  that 
there  were  21  ayes  and  2  noes,  and  the  Resolution  was  adopted. 

Voted,  That  Mr.  Goss  be  advised  to  renew  his  application  to  the 
Tabernacle  Church,  for  a  letter  of  dismission,  and  of  recommenda- 
tion to  the  Howard  Street  Church :  and  if  his  request  be  refused, 
that  he  be  advised  to  offer  himself  for  membership  to  the  Howard 
Street  Church,  and  that  the  Howard  Street  Church  be  advised  to 
receive  him. 

Voted,  That  a  committee  be  chosen  to  prepare  a  Result  of  Council. 
Rev.  Dr.  Beecher,  Bro.  Z.  Eddy,  Rev.  R.  Crowell,  Rev.  Dr.  Storrs, 
and  Rev.  A.  L.  Stone,  were  appointed  this  committee. 

Voted,  That  we  adjourn,  to  meet  at  7  o'clock  this  evening. 

Council  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  The  committee  chosen  to 
prepare  a  Result  of  Council  reported  progress  ;  whereupon  it  was 
voted,  That  when  the  Council  adjourn,  it  adjourn  to  meet  on  Wed- 
nesday, January  16th,  at  10  o'clock,  A.M.,  at  the  vestry  of  Park 
Street  Church,  Boston,  to  hear  the  report  of  the  committee,  appointed 
to  prepare  a  Result  of  Council. 

Voted  to  adjourn. 

Attest,  A.  L.  Stone,  Scribe. 

The  council  met  by  adjournment,  January  16,  at  10  o'clock,  in  the 
vestry  of  Park  Street  Church,  to  hear  the  report  of  the  committee 
appointed  to  frame  a  Result. 

There  were  present  the  following  churches  by  their  Pastors  and 
delegates. 

1.  Church  in  South  Reading. 

Rev.  R.  Emerson,  Pastor. 

2.  Church  in  West  Medivay. 

Rev.  Jacob  Ide,  D.D.,  Pastor. 

3.  Church  in  Braintree. 

Rev.  R.  S.  Storrs,  D.D.,  Pastor. 


4.  Church  in  Randolph. 

Rev.  Calvin  Hitchcock,  D.D.,  Pastor, 
Dr.  Ebenezer  Alden,  Delegate. 

5.  South  Church  in  Ipswich. 

Rev.  Daniel  Fitz,  Pastor, 

Bro.  Daniel  Cogswell,  Delegate. 

6.  Church  in  Rockport. 

Rev.  W.  Gale,  Pastor, 
Dea.  Thos.  Giles,  Delegate. 

7.  Mt.  Vernon  Church,  Boston. 

Rev.  Edward  N.  Kirk,  Pastor, 
Dea.  Daniel  Safford,  Delegate. 

8.  Salem  Church,  Boston. 

Rev.  Edward  Beecher,  D.D.,  Pastor, 
Dr.  Ephraim  Buck,  Delegate. 

9.  Park  Street  Church,  Boston. 

Rev.  A.  L.  Stone,  Pastor, 
Rev.  Louis  Dwight,  Delegate. 

10.  Church  in  Middleboro\ 

Rev.  Israel  W.  Putnam,  Pastor, 
Bro.  Zechariah  Eddy,  Delegate. 

11.  Church  in  Hopkinton. 

Rev.  J.  C.  Webster,  Pastor, 
Bro.  J.  A.  Fitch,  Delegate. 

12.  Church  in  Cambridgeport. 

Rev.  J.  C.  Lovejoy,  Pastor. 

Rev.  Mr.  Emerson  in  the  chair.  Prayer  was  offered  by  Rev.  Mr. 
Putnam.  The  minutes  of  the  last  meeting  of  the  council  were  read 
by  the  Scribe  and  approved. 

Voted,  That  the  Council  be  by  themselves. 

Rev.  Dr.  Beecher,  chairman  of  the  committee  to  prepare  a  Result, 
presented  the  report  of  the  committee. 

Voted,  That  the  report  of  the  committee  be  accepted. 

Moved,  That  the  report  be  adopted  as  the  Result  of  the  Council. 
Carried  with  two  dissenting  votes.* 

Rev.  Dr.  Hitchcock  presented  and  read  a  remonstrance  against 
the  action  of  the  Council. 

Voted,  That  the  committee  to  prepare  a  Result  be  a  committee  to 
communicate  the  action  of  the  Council. 

Minutes  approved.     Voted,  To  dissolve. 

Attest,  A.  L.  Stone,  Scribe. 

*  One  of  these  dissentients  expressed  his  conviction  that  the  Howard  Street  Church 
was  not  dissolved  in  fact,  and  his  acccordance  with  the  main  principles  of  the  report, 
but  for  particular  reasons  he  declined  voting  for  the  result  as  a  whole. 


RESULT. 

The  questions  of  principle  concerning  which  this  council  is  called 
to  advise,  grow  out  of  the  refusal  of  the  Tabernacle  Church  in  Salem 
to  grant  a  letter  of  dismission  and  recommendation  to  one  of  their 
members,  Mr.  Ezekiel  Goss,  to  the  Howard  Street  Church*  on  the 
following  alleged  grounds. 

1.  That  that  church  was  dissolved  by  a  vote  of  a  majority  of  the 
church  in  accordance  with  the  advice  of  a  mutual  council. 

2.  That  the  Essex  South  Conference  had  sustained  the  validity  of 
the  action  of  the  aforesaid  majority. 

3.  That  it  is  not  consistent  with  the  principles  of  order  and  fellow- 
ship in  our  Congregational  churches,  nor  promotive  of  the  best 
interests  of  the  community,  to  recognize  the  claims  of  those  who  now 
assume  to  be  the  original  Howard  Street  Church,  as  valid. f 

It  was  also  made  manifest  to  the  council,  that  these  were  the  only 
grounds  on  which  the  letter  was  refused,  no  other  cause  being 
assigned  in  the  documents  of  the  church. 

It  was  indeed  reported  by  a  committee  of  the  church,  that  they 
had  intimated  to  him  that  his  absence  from  church  meetings,  public 
worship  and  the  sacramental  seasons  of  the  church,  was  irregular 
and  contrary  to  his  covenant,  and  seemed  to  proceed  from  alienation 
of  feeling,  and  that  on  this  ground  it  was  improper  to  grant  his 
request 4  But  he  was  expressly  told  by  the  pastor  that  the  church 
did  not  adopt  or  sanction  this  report.  §  Mr.  Goss  stated  in  a  letter 
to  the  church,  Sept.  14,  1849,  "  I  know  of  no  unkind  feeling  to  any 
member  on  my  part ;  if  there  is  or  has  been,  I  wish  their  forgiveness, 
as  they  would  be  forgiven."  ||  In  Oct.  12,  1849,  he  said  concerning 
his  absence,  in  another  communication  addressed  to  the  church,  "  I 
acted  in  good  faith,  supposing  that  I  was  in  order.  I  was  doing 
as  others  had  done  without  reproach.  The  pastor  knew  of  my  course 
and  my  feeling."  He  then  states  that  if  the  pastor  and  others 
thought  that  he  was  doing  wrong,  they  ought  in  covenant  fidelity  to 
have  admonished  him, "  but  as  it  is,  I  did  not  know  that  I  was  guilty 
until  I  asked  to  be  dismissed,  and  now  I  cannot  see  it.  I  repeat  that 
if  any  have  been  grieved  with  any  of  my  wrong  doing,  I  humbly 
ask  them  to  forgive,  and  when  I  am  sensible  what  the  wrong  is,  I 
will  endeavor  to  make  all  suitable  reparations." 

This  communication  however  the  pastor  and  church  refused  to 
allow  him  to  read — and  when  he  desired  to  speak  on  what  the  com- 
mittee had  said  to  him,  they  refused  to  hear  him.     The  reason 

*  Appendix  No.  1.  t  No.  2. 

+  No.  3.  §  No.  4.  ||  No.  6". 

2 


10 

assigned  for  this  was  that  the  church  had  not  adopted  and  thus 
endorsed  the  statements  of  the  committee,  and  that  the  church  had 
neither  charges  nor  charge  against  him.  It  was  repeatedly  said  to 
him,  "  we  have  nothing  against  you,"*  and  therefore  he  was  not 
allowed  to  speak.  Here  then  a  brother  had  come  before  the  church 
desirous  to  see  his  offence,  if  any  there  were,  desirous  to  confess  and 
make  reparation  when  convinced,  desirous  so  to  explain  his  conduct 
as  to  give  satisfaction,  and  yet  was  not  allowed  to  speak,  on  the  ground 
that  they  had  nothing  against  him.  Is  it  right  now  in  such  a  case  to 
hold  back  grounds  of  grievance,  if  any  there  are,  and  to  refuse  to 
hear  any  explanations  or  receive  any  confessions  or  satisfaction  that 
might  have  been  made,  on  the  oft  repeated  ground  that  they  had 
nothing  against  him  ;  and  yet  to  refuse  him  a  letter,  and  then  when  he 
asks  relief  of  an  ecclesiastical  council,  to  throw  in  an  intimation  that 
he  was  under  an  unfinished  course  of  discipline  ?  Or  even  to  inti- 
mate that  they  were  about  to  commence  a  course  ?  But  even  this 
last  intimation  is  rebutted  by  direct  testimony.  For  when  it  was 
suggested  to  the  church  to  begin  to  deal  with  him,  the  pastor  objected 
and  they  refused  so  to  do.f 

We  therefore  are  satisfied  that  the  brother  was  not  under  a  process 
of  discipline,  but  is  in  good  and  regular  standing.  Moreover,  as 
he  expressed  sorrow  and  asked  forgiveness  if  he  had  grieved  his 
brethren,  disclaimed  all  intention  or  consciousness  of  doing  wrong, 
and  offered  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  make  reparation  when  convinced 
of  wrong,  he  did  all  that  he  could,  and  of  course  all  that  any  one 
could  reasonably  demand,  to  give  satisfaction  to  his  brethren.  If 
then  the  pastor  and  church  refused  to  receive  satisfaction  when  he 
desired  to  give  it,  it  is  no  part  or  province  of  Christian  discipline  to 
reserve  offences  for  future  consideration,  and  to  intimate  to  him  or  to 
the  council,  that  perhaps,  hereafter,  they  may  call  him  to  account. 
To  do  this  is  rather  to  abuse  discipline  as  a  means  of  impeding  him 
in  securing  his  rights,  than  to  follow  the  law  of  Christ,  if  thy  brother 
say  unto  thee  I  repent,  thou  shalt  forgive  him. 

The  council  is  of  the  opinion  that  when  a  member  applies  for  letters 
of  testimonial  and  of  dismission,  and  no  process  of  discipline  is 
pending  against  him,  he  is  entitled  to  receive  them  unless  some 
brother  declares  that  he  is  offended,  and  will  take  immediate  steps  of 
gospel  discipline  in  respect  to  it.  Otherwise  a  member  could  never 
secure  his  rights,  so  long  as  either  the  pastor  or  any  other  brother 
saw  fit  to  say  that  perhaps  hereafter  he  should  commence  discipline. 

As  a  council,  therefore,  we  are  not  called  on  to  interfere  with  an 
unfinished  case  of  discipline.     No  process  of  discipline  had  been 

*  No.  4.  t  No.  6. 


11 

commenced.  On  the  other  hand,  the  brother  is  in  good  and  regular 
standing  in  bis  church. 

We  arc  therefore  called  to  consider  simply  the  alleged  dissolution 
of  the  Howard  Street  Church,  and  the  action  of  the  Essex  South 
Conference  with  respect  to  it,  as  the  reasons  for  denying  to  Mr. 
Goss  a  letter  to  the  Howard  Street  Church. 

It  was  also  made  clear  to  the  council,  that  Mr.  Goss  had  proposed 
to  the  Tabernacle  Church  to  call  a  mutual  council  to  advise  with 
reference  to  the  validity  of  these  reasons,*  and  that  they  had  refused 
to  accept  his  proposal^  The  reasons  assigned  by  the  church  for 
refusing  to  unite  in  calling  a  mutual  council  are  in  substance,  that 
their  own  action  with  reference  to  Howard  Street  Church,  was  taken 
with  much  carefulness,  and  under  a  constraining  sense  of  duty  to 
vindicate  and  support  the  fundamental  principles  and  accredited 
usages  of  our  Congregational  order,  as  affecting  the  independence  of 
each  church  respectively,  and  the  inalienable  rights  of  majorities  in 
each  church,  and  that  there  is  no  existing  occasion  to  submit  its 
doings  to  the  revision  of  a  council,  neither  is  there  any  such  occasion 
apprehended  in  the  changes  of  the  future. 

We  suppose  that  whenever  an  individual  feels  his  rights  invaded 
by  the  action  of  a  church,  similar  reasons  might  be  assigned  by  the 
church  for  refusing  to  unite  in  a  mutual  council.  A  church  will  of 
course  be  satisfied  that  they  have  acted  carefully,  and  under  a  sense 
of  duty,  and  it  is  natural  to  feel  that  no  advice  is  needed  or  is  likely 
to  be.  But  suppose  that  the  individual  differs  from  the  church  as  to 
what  are  the  fundamental  principles  and  accredited  usages  of  Con- 
gregationalism, and  believes  them  to  be  violated,  and  not  defended 
by  the  church  ?     Has  he  no  remedy  ? 

If  such  reasons  for  refusing  a  mutual  council  are  valid,  then 
individuals  have  no  possible  mode  left  of  vindicating  their  rights,  and 
nothing  remains  but  universal  and  unconditional  submission  to  what- 
ever the  church  shall  see  fit  to  do.  But  it  was  the  express  design 
of  our  ancestors  in  establishing  ex  parte  councils,  to  avert  such  a 
result,  and  thereby  prevent  our  churches  from  becoming  irremediable 
despotisms.  It  is  therefore  plain  to  the  council  that  a  sufficient 
ground  for  convening  us  has  been  made  out,  and  that  duty  calls  on 
us  to  consider  the  questions  at  issue,  and  to  give  such  advice  as  has 
been  requested. 

In  entering  upon  the  discharge  of  this  duty,  we  cannot  but  be 
deeply  affected  with  the  importance  of  the  principles  involved.  We 
are  well  assured  that  a  case  similar  to  the  one  in  question  has  rarely, 
if  ever,  occurred  in  the  history  of  our  churches.     The  principles  on 

*  No  7.  t  No.  8. 


12 

which  it  was  attempted  to  dissolve  the  Howard  Street  Church,  and 
by  which  that  act  is  defended,  are  not  only  novel,  but  in  our  judg- 
ment would,  if  carried  out,  effect  an  entire  revolution  in  our  churches 
as  it  regards  the  import  and  sacredness  of  the  covenants  by  which 
they  are  bound  together ;  and  furnish  a  new  instrument  of  destruc- 
tion, to  be  used  in  every  case  of  difficulty  and  division  in  a  church. 
Great,  therefore,  as  is  the  respect  and  affection  with  which  Ave  regard 
the  brethren  who  have  introduced  and  are  attempting  to  defend  these 
new  doctrines  in  our  churches,  we  feel  constrained  to  do  all  in  our 
power  to  subject  them  to  a  thorough  scrutiny,  and  to  call  on  our 
churches  decidedly  to  reject  them,  as  at  war  with  the  fundamental 
principles  of  our  system,  and  the  obvious  dictates  of  truth  and 
righteousness. 

And  inasmuch  as  the  Tabernacle  Church  has  seen  fit  to  appeal  to 
"  the  fundamental  principles,  and  accredited  usages,"  of  our  churches, 
and  the  Essex  South  Conference  has  intimated  that  "  precedents" 
sustain  their  decision,*  we  shall  commence  our  investigations  by  the 
inquiry,  what  these  "  fundamental  principles  and  accredited  usages," 
and  "  precedents"  are,  in  the  present  case  ? 

It  will,  therefore,  be  seen  at  once,  that  the  present  inquiry  is  not, 
Are  our  Congregational  principles  and  usages  right,  and  can  they  be 
defended  by  an  appeal  to  the  Bible  ?  but,  What  are  they  in  fact  ?  If 
our  brethren  shall  ever  see  fit,  professedly,  to  repudiate  them,  then 
it  will  be  time  to  defend  them.  But,  so  long  as  they  appeal  to  them 
for  support,  it  is  only  necessary  to  inquire  what  they  are. 

It  is  obvious,  also,  that  the  principles,  usages,  and  precedents, 
which  we  are  called  on  especially  to  consider, --are  those  which  re- 
late to  the  covenant,  by  which  believers  in  our  churches  are  bound 
to  God,  and  to  each  other. 

We  proceed  with  the  more  pleasure  to  consider  our  fathers'  views 
of  the  church  covenant,  because  it  is  a  point  on  which  the  founders 
of  our  system  were  perfectly  agreed,  and  to  which  they  attached  the 
highest  importance.  With  them  the  covenant  was  not  only  a  funda- 
mental principle  of  the  system,  but,  as  they  held  it,  it  was  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  the  whole  Congregational  fabric.  Davenport,  in 
his  defence  of  Congregationalism  against  Paget,  speaking  of  the 
"  formal  cause"  that  is,  the  organizing  principle  of  the  church,  says, 
"  this  holy  society,  the  Church  of  Christ,  arises  from  the  coadunition 
or  knitting  together  of  many  saints,  into  one  (body),  by  a  holy  cove- 
nant, whereby  they,  as  lively  stones,  are  built  up  a  spiritual  house. 
1  Pet.  2 :  4,  5.  Though  a  church  covenant  be  common  to  all 
churches,  in  its  general  nature,  yet  there  is  a  special  combination, 
which  gives  a  peculiar  being  to  one  Congregational  church  and  its 

*  No.  9. 


13 

members,  distinct  from  all  others  ;  else  how  could  one  church  have 
that  power  over  its  own  members,  which  another  hath  nut  ? 

In  Hooker's  Survey,  Pt.  I.,  chap,  iv.,  the  inquiry  is  raised,  What 
is  that  which  makes  the  church  to  be  that  which  it  is  ?  The  reply 
is,  not  invisible  union  and  communion  with  Christ,  but  "  mutual  cove- 
nanting and  confederating  of  the  saints  in  the  fellowship  of  the  faith, 
according  to  the  order  of  the  gospel,  is  that  which  gives  constitution 
and  being  to  a  visible  church."  Of  this  their  antagonists  were  fully 
aware. 

Rathband  charged  on  the  Congregationalists,  as  an  error,  that 
they  made  "  what  they  call  the  Church  Covenant,  whereby  all  the 
members  of  the  Society  (Church)  are  united  to  Christ,  and  to  one 
another,"  "  absolutely  necessary,  essential,  and  constitutional,  to 
and  of  the  true  Church."  Welcle  admits  that  this  is  their  view  of 
"  a  pure  Congregational  Church,  as  it  is  refined  according  to  the 
platform  of  the  Gospel." 

For  this  principle,  as  held  and  applied  by  them,  they  were  attacked 
both  in  England  and  elsewhere,  by  the  opponents  of  Congregational- 
ism. In  1637,  certain  ministers  in  England  undertook  to  call  the 
New  England  brethren  to  account,  for  opinions  and  practices  deemed 
by  them  "  groundless  and  unwarrantable,"  and  forwarded  nine  po- 
sitions of  this  sort  to  them,  on  which  they  demanded  their  judgment. 
Of  these,  the  sixth  stated  what  they  deemed  the  unwarrantable  claim 
that  no  church  member  could  withdraw  from  a  church,  without  leave 
first  obtained  from  the  church.  The  New  England  ministers  admit- 
ted the  principle,  and  defended  it,  on  the  ground  that  the  church 
covenant,  of  necessity,  implied  it.  This  called  out  a  full  statement 
of  their  views  of  the  covenant.*  This,  according  to  them,  consists  in 
four  particulars. 

1.  "  Every  member,  at  his  admission,  doth  openly  profess,  and  so- 
lemnly promise,  that,  by  Christ's  help  assisting,  he  will  not  only,  in 
general,  give  up  himself, — as  to  the  Lord,  to  be  guided  by  him,  so 
to  the  church  according  to  God,  to  be  directed  by  it ;"  but  also,  in 
particular,  that  he  will  perform  all  duties  of  brotherly  love  and  faith- 
fulness to  the  body  ;  as  of  diligent  watchfulness  over  all  his  brethren, 
thereby  to  prevent  sin ;  so  of  faithful  admonition,  after  their  falls,  to 
regain  them  to  the  Lord  from  their  sin." 

2.  "  The  engagements  are  not  made  only  by  the  members  ad- 
mitted into  the  church,  but  by  the  church  back  again  to  the  members. 
So  that,  thereby,  the  whole  church  in  general,  and  every  member  in 
particular,  stand  as  well  in  conscience  bound,  to  perform  all  duties  of 
love  and  watchfulness  to  him,  as  he  doth  to  them." 

3.  "  These  promises,  thus  lawfully  and  mutually  made,  that  mem- 

•  Written,  in  all  probability,  by  the  celebrated  John  Cotton. 


14 

bers,  as  also  the  whole  church,  are  bound,  not  only  every  one  for 
himself  actively  to  perform  them,  but  passively,  also,  to  suffer  his 
brethren  to  do  these  offices  upon  and  towards  himself.  If  he  neglect 
the  former,  he  shall  falsify  his  covenant,  so  solemnly,  before  God, 
angels  and  men,  made  ;  and  so  not  only  break  his  promise  to  his 
brethren,  contrary  to  Ps.  15  :  4,  but  also,  in  some  sort,  commit  the  sin 
of  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  in  lying  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  condemned 
and  severely  punished  by  God's  own  hand.  If  he  fail  in  the  latter, 
he  shall  not  only  be  guilty  of  the  same  sin  of  breach  of  covenant 
with  God  and  man,  as  in  the  former,  but  shall  also  be  guilty  of  this 
folly  of  despising  council,  so  much  condemned,  and  shall  also  proclaim 
this  his  folly  and  pride,  by  showing  to  all  the  church  that  he  is  wise 
in  his  own  eyes,  and  leans  to  his  own  wisdom,  both  reproved  in  Prov. 
3  :  7,  and  23  :  4." 

4.  "  From  all  these  things  premised,  it  appears  that  we  can  do  no 
less — and  yet  we  do  no  more  than,  first,  require  a  metnber,  before 
he  depart,  according  to  our  covenant,  thus  lawfully,  deliberately,  and 
mutually  made,  to  express  to  his  brethren  his  desire  of  departing, 
and  the  place  and  society  to  which  he  tends — whether  to  a  godly 
church,  where  he  may  be  edified,  or  to  some  corrupt  assembly,  where 
he  may  be  destroyed  !  and,  secondly,  require  his  grounds  and  reasons 
which  move  him  so  to  do."  All  of  these  particulars  are  sustained  by 
an  appeal  to  the  word  of  God.  Thus  did  New  England,  in  a  clear 
and  eloquent  testimony,  utter  to  Old  England  her  deepest  and  most 
settled  convictions  as  to  the  nature  and  effects  of  a  church  covenant. 
And  it  here  deserves  especial  notice  how  clearly  they  enforce  the 
truth,  the  mutual  covenant  between  member  and  member,  is  not 
separable  from  the  covenant  with  God,  but  is  a  part  of  it ;  so  that, 
to  violate  it,  is  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  did  Ananias  and  Sapphira. 
In  short,  they  covenant  with  God,  not  only  to  serve  him,  but 
also  to  enter  into  a  church  state  with  each  other,  and  to  fulfil  the 
vows  made  to  each  other,  in  coming  into  that  relation,  so  that  the 
covenant  with  man  cannot  be  broken  without  breaking  the  covenant 
with  God. 

It  was  charged  upon  our  fathers  as  an  offence,  that  they  held  such 
views  of  the  covenant.  In  1644,  Eathband  endeavored  to  set  forth, 
in  an  odious  light,  the  principles  of  our  New  England  fathers — to 
whom  Welde,  of  Roxbury,  replied.  And  it  is  very  striking,  that, 
among  other  things,  Rathband  quotes,  for  this  purpose,  the  covenant 
of  the  Church  in  Salem,  as  follows :  "  We,  whose  names  are  here- 
under written,  members  of  the  present  Church  of  Christ,  at  Salem, 
&c,  solemnly,  in  the  presence  of  God,  &c,  renew  this  church  cove- 
nant, which  we  find  this  church  bound  unto  at  their  first  beginning, 
viz.,  we  covenant  with  the  Lord,  and  one  with  another,  and  do  bind 


15 

ourselves,  in  the  presence  of  God.  to  walk  together  in  all  the  ways 
of  God,  according  as  he  is  pleased  to  reveal  himself  unto  us  in  his 
word;  and  after  many  specifications,  'we  promise  to  walk  with  our 
brethren  and  sisters  in  this  congregation  (church),  with  all  watchful- 
ness and  tenderness.'  "  Here  the  covenant  with  man  is  included  in 
the  covenant  with  God, — "  We  covenant  with  God,  and  with  one 
another,  to  walk  together  in  a  church  state,"  is  its  import.  This 
same  view,  as  will  appear  elsewhere,  is  found  in  Cotton  Mather's 
Ratio,  in  1776,  and  was  then  the  common  form  of  the  churches. 
We  shall  also  show,  in  another  place,  that  it  is  incorporated  at  this 
very  day  in  the  covenant  of  the  Tabernacle  Church  in  Salem.  More- 
over, this  view  their  assailants  charged  on  them  as  an  error.  Rath- 
hand  says,  that  in  their  definition  of  a  covenant,  it  is  included,  "  that 
they  hind  themselves  to  the  Lord,  to  walk  in  all  such  ways  of  holy 
worship  to  him,  and  of  edification,  one  towards  another,  as  God  him- 
self hath  required  of  every  church,  and  the  members  thereof." — 
Apol.  p.  5  ;  Discov.  of  Gov.  p.  3.     This  Welde  concedes. 

Such  were  the  views  of  our  fathers  on  this  most  momentous  theme. 
Nor  were  they  heedlessly  formed  ;  for  holding  them  they  were  sub- 
jected to  severe  and  long-continued  attacks,  and  deep  study  and 
earnest  prayer  was  needed  to  sustain  and  vindicate  their  truth. 
Burton,  in  his  defence  of  Congregationalism,  against  Bastwick,  1645, 
says  :  "  Now  the  very  name  of  covenant  is  become  a  bugbear  to 
many,"  and  again,  "  You  tell  us  that  our  gathering  of  churches  hath 
no  example  in  Scripture."  Rathband  says,  that  "  the  Apostles  went 
a  shorter  way  to  work — because  the  Holy  Ghost  had  given  them  no 
such  direction,  nor  was  this  matter  of  a  church  constitution  (by  a 
covenant)   then  hatcht." 

In  Hooker's  Survey,  the  whole  of  the  7th  chapter  of  Part  I.  is 
devoted  to  answering  the  arguments  against  their  views  of  the  church 
covenant,  alleged  by  Rutherford  and  various  others. 

Finally,  the  same  doctrine  is  embodied  in  the  Cambridge  Platform, 
ch.  4  :  sec.  1,  2,  3,  where  the  following  words  are  worthy  of  particular 
notice.  After  stating  that  particular  churches  can  be  known  only  by 
their  forms,  they  say,  "  This  form  is  the  visible  covenant,  agreement, 
or  consent,  whereby  they  give  up  themselves  unto  the  Lord,  to  the 
observing  of  the  ordinances  of  Christ,  together  in  the  same  Society, 
ivhich  is  usually  called  the  Church  Covenant.  For  we  see  not 
otherwise  how  members  can  have  church  power  over  one  another 
mutually."  Here  we  see  that  coming  into  a  church  state  is  an  es- 
sential part  of  the  obligation  assumed  in  giving  themselves  up  to  God, 
so  that  the  covenant  with  him  is  a  covenant  to  enter  into,  and  to  re- 
main in,  a  visible  particular  church,  by  a  covenant  with  them. 

Such,  then,  were  the  views  of  the  fathers  of  our  system,  who  bore 


16 

the  burden  and  heat  of  the  day  in  laying  those  deep  foundations  on 
which  our  churches  have  for  centuries  reposed.  Churches  were  with 
them  no  mere  voluntary  associations  for  mutual  religious  improvement, 
which  those  who  formed  might  dissolve  at  pleasure,  and  replace  by 
what  they  deemed  better,  or  by  none  at  all,  as  they  saw  fit.  Though 
no  man  could  enter  the  church  except  by  his  own  free  will,  yet  the 
church  itself  was  an  ordinance  of  God,  and  it  was  his  revealed  will 
that  every  man  who  had  repented  and  believed  in  Christ,  (and  it  was 
every  man's  duty  to  do  this)  should  enter  by  mutual  covenant  with 
some  particular  church  into  church  estate.  Of  course  when  they 
covenanted  with  God  to  do  all  his  known  will,  whether  it  was  expressly 
stated  or  not,  they  covenanted  to  come  into  church  estate  with  their 
brethren,  and  to  remain  in  it.  But  that  so  important  a  duty  might 
not  be  left  to  mere  inference,  they  expressly  incorporated  it  into  their 
covenants  with  God. 

Moreover  they  held  definitely  and  decidedly  that  if  not  in  covenant 
with  some  particular  local  church,  no  one  had  a  right  to  claim  any 
interest,  or  to  challenge  any  privilege  in  any  other  local  church. 
Hence  Hooker,  in  his  Survey,  expressly  says,  "  In  the  house  of  God 
we  must  become  covenanting  servants  if  we  have  any  interest  there, 
or  think  to  challenge  any  privilege  there."  In  other  places,  he  and 
others  defend  this  principle  at  great  length,  as  will  hereafter  appear. 

We  are  thus  full  in  this  investigation  because  of  the  confident 
appeal  of  our  brethren  of  the  Tabernacle  Church  to  "  the  fundamen- 
tal principles  and  accredited  usages  of  our  churches."  We  now  see 
clearly  what  they  are. 

We  moreover  give  prominence  to  this  part  of  the  subject,  because 
those  who  defend  the  power  of  a  majority  to  dissolve  the  Howard 
Street  Church,  have  found  it  necessary  explicitly  to  deny,  and  argue 
against  these  very  foundation  principles  of  the  Congregational  system 
— so  that  a  more  fundamental  issue  cannot  be  raised.  If  they  are 
right,  all  of  our  fathers  were  wrong — Mather,  and  Cotton,  and  Hooker, 
and  Davenport,  and  Welde,  and  the  framers  of  the  Cambridge  Plat- 
form, and  the  New  England  ministers  who  defended  our  polity 
against  assailants  in  old  England,  and  the  ancient  church  of  Salem, 
and  all  our  ancient  churches,  and  even  the  fathers  of  the  Tabernacle 
Church  in  Salem, — these  are  all  of  them  wrong,  and  the  antagonists 
of  Congregationalism  are  right.  All  this  may  be,  and  if  it  is  so,  then 
let  our  foundation  principles  be  overthrown,  and  a  new  system  be  built 
upon  better.  But  let  not  such  a  work  be  called  a  defence  of  our 
"  fundamental  principles  and  accredited  usages,"  but  a  work  of 
radical  reform,  and  its  authors  radical  reformers. 

Again,  we  give  prominence  to  these  principles  because  the  whole 
issue  depends  on  them.  Here  is  the  great  hinge  on  which  the  whole 
discussion  turns,  and  we  cannot  place  it  in  a  light  too  clear  and  vivid. 


17 

And  now  we  remark  that  of  this  kind  was  the  covenant  of  the 
Howard  Street  Church,  only  as  it  might  seem  with  a  providential 
foresight  of  such  a  crisis  as  the  present,  they  were  guided  to  insert 
stipulations  rising  in  intensity  above  all  that  is  found  elsewise. 
After  the  usual  covenant  with  God  and  the  church  they  bind  the 
vows  already  assumed  by  assenting  to  the  following  affecting  pledge. 

"  In  reliance  on  that  grace  which  is  able  to  keep  you  from  falling, 
you  receive  the  covenant  promises,  and  a  covenant  God  as  yours 
forever,  and  set  your  seal  to  a  full  determination  that  in  life  and  in 
death  you  will  be  faithful  to  this  covenant.  This  people  is  your 
people,  and  this  God  is  your  God.  Thus  you  promise  and  declare." 
Then  the  reciprocal  vows  of  the  church  are  assumed,  and  a  title 
to  all  the  privileges  of  the  church  estate  is  solemnly  given,  before 
God,  angels  and  men.  As  to  the  nature  and  import  of  the  covenant 
of  the  Howard  Street  Church,  there  can,  then,  be  no  shadow  of  a  doubt. 

AVe  next  proceed  to  consider  the  principles  and  usages  of  our 
system,  as  to  a  transfer  of  covenant  relations  from  one  particular 
church  to  another.  And  here  the  case  is  no  less  clear.  It  of 
necessity  flows  from  the  preceding  views  of  the  covenant,  and  is  in 
universal  accordance  with  the  fundamental  principles  and  accredited 
usages  of  our  system,  that  the  only  ways  to  cease  to  be  a  member  of 
any  particular  church  are  these  : 

1.  By  a  letter  of  dismission  and  recommendation  to  another  church, 
given  on  this  condition. — that  not  until  the  person  recommended  is 
received  by  such  church  shall  his  existing  membership  cease. 

2.  By  the  act  of  God,  calling  the  person  home  by  death. 

3.  By  excommunication,  for  offences,  properly  charged  and  proved. 
The  Cambridge  Platform  is  full  and  decided  to  this  effect.     "  Order 

requires  that  a  member  removing  have  letters  testimonial  and  of 
dismission  from  the  church  whereof  he  yet  is,  unto  the  church  where- 
unto  he  desireth  to  be  joined.  Until  the  person  dismissed  be  received 
into  another  church,  he  ceaseth  not,  by  his  letters  of  dismission,  to  be 
a  member  of  the  church  whereof  he  was.     The  church  cannot 

MAKE  A  MEMBER  NO  MEMBER,  BUT  BY  EXCOMMUNICATION." 

These  then  are  the  only  modes  of  leaving  the  church ;  and  till  it  is 
thus  left,  all  who  are  "in  it  are  bound  not  only  to  God  to  remain  in 
covenant  with  each  other,  but  also  to  each  other,  by  the  mutual  vows 
which  they  have  assumed.  Each  individual  has  covenanted  with  God, 
and  with  each  in  the  church,  to  watch  over  them  and  seek  their  good 
according  to  his  ability.  Out  of  this  covenant  grows  the  right  and 
duty  of  mutual  exhortation,  and,  if  need  be,  of  reproof  and  discipline. 
To  be  in  such  a  covenant  our  fathers  justly  regarded  as  one  of  the 
highest  privileges  that  can  be  enjoyed  on  earth  ;  to  be  the  subject  of 
such  watchful  care,  is  one  of  the  highest  necessities  of  a  Christian  in 
this  world  of  trial  and  temptation. 
3 


18 

What,  then,  are  we  to  understand  by  the  alleged  dissolution  of  the 
Howard  Street  Church  ?  Is  it  that  all  of  the  members,  by  advice 
of  council  sought  and  received  letters  to  other  churches,  and  were  by 
them  received,  and  thus  the  Howard  Street  Church  ceased  to  exist  ? 
Had  this  been  done,  no  covenant  obligations  had  been  violated,  no 
principles  of  Congregationalism  had  been  contravened.  But  this  is 
not  what  the  council  recommended.  This  is  not  what  the  church 
did.  The  reason  is  plain.  All  of  the  members  did  not  desire  to  do 
it.  The  Howard  Street  Church  were  not  so  reduced  in  numbers  and 
resources,  nor  were  they  so  deficient  in  piety,  that  they  could  not 
sustain  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  the  ordinances  of  the  church. 
Nor  was  it  true  that  the  public  good  did  not  require  a  church 
where  the  Howard  Street  Church  stood.  All  this  the  council  which 
advised  the  dissolution  expressly  state.  The  thing  which  the  council 
deemed  expedient,  was  in  some  way  to  get  rid  of  this  church,  as  it 
was  then  organized,  in  order  that  a  new  one  might  be  organized  in  its 
place,  in  which  a  portion  of  the  materials  should  be  better,  and  the 
whole  church  be  better  put  together.  This  the  council  expressly 
avow.*  They  tell  us  in  the  first  place,  "  It  appears  that  the  pastor's 
request  for  a  dismission  arises  from  embarrassments  which  have 
rendered,  in  a  great  degree,  abortive  his  earnest  and  self-denying 
efforts  for  a  course  of  years,  and  which  embarrassments  have  now 
come  to  a  crisis,  so  that  we  can  do  no  less  than  accede  to  his  request, 
and  we  hereby  declare  his  pastoral  relation  dissolved." 

What  they  meant  by  the  embarrassments  here  spoken  of  will 
appear  from  the  following  paragraph  in  their  Result. 

"  We  deem  it  to  be  our  duty  in  concluding  this  Result,  to  call  upon 
some  of  the  individuals  of  the  church  to  reconsider  the  manner  in 
which  they  have  treated  their  pastor,  during  the  existence  of  the 
difficulties  which  have  given  occasion  to  the  calling  of  this  council. 
Saying  nothing  of  those  who  have  been  in  fault  in  other  matters, 
there  has  been  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  these,  to  push  some 
favorite  points  to  extremes  ; — a  want  of  charitable  construction  of 
the  pastor's  motives  and  conduct  in  relation  to  points  on  which  there 
existed  a  difference  of  opinion  between  him  and  them ;  and  a  defi- 
ciency of  that  kindness  and  courtesy  Avhich  he  had  a  right  to  claim 
as  a  Christian  minister,  and  particularly  as  their  pastor." 

That  they  contemplated  the  removal  of  these  individuals  in  some 
way  into  some  other  organization,  is  obvious  from  the  closing  advice 
of  the  Result. 

"  The  council  hope  that  they  will  see  their  error,  and  that  in  what- 
ever future  ecclesiastical  connection  they  may  be  placed,  they  will 

*  No.  10. 


19 

Beek  to  be  possessed  of  a  spirit  of  wisdom,  and  of  a  sound  mind,  and 
-will  remember,  that  charity,  kindness,  and  forbearance  are  as  import- 
ant parts  of  Christian  character,  as  zeal  in  suppressing  the  errors 
and  vices  of  society.  «  Parsons  Cooke,  Moderator. 

"  E.  A.  Lawrence,  Scribe.'''' 

We  are  now  prepared  fully  to  understand  the  advice  given  by  the 
Council  to  the  church. 

"  And  since  the  embarrassments  which  have  so  far  frustrated  his 
ministry  still  exist,  without  prospect  of  change,  while  the  church 
retains  its  present  organization,  we  would  suggest  the  inquiry  whether 
the  best  good  of  all  concerned  would  not  be  consulted  by  a  dissolu- 
tion of  that  organization,  and  the  members  connect  themselves  with 
other  churches" in  this  city.  A  step  so  uncommon,  we  think,  is  made 
expedient  by  reasons  as  peculiar.  It  is  not  that  we  think  that  there 
is  not  ability  and  piety  enough  to  sustain  the  enterprise  in  favoring 
circumstances.  There  are  materials  of  great  value  in  this  church, 
but  they  stand  in  such  relations  as  to  hinder  their  efforts  for  good. 
Nor  is"  it  true  that  our  denomination  in  this  city  have  churches 
enough  without  this.  The  prospect  rather  appears  to  be,  that  if  this 
is  dissolved,  a  new  one  will  soon  take  its  place.  We  would,  there- 
fore, advise  that  the  present  organization,  if  it  sees  fit,  vote  a  disso- 
lution, and  if  the  proprietors  of  the  meeting-house  see  fit  to  close  it 
awhile  and  wait  for  the  movements  of  Providence,  we  feel  persuaded 
that  the  time  will  soon  come  when  the  way  will  be  made  to  open  it 
under  better  auspices.  A  new  organization  formed  for  the  purpose, 
would  of  course  stand  clear  of  most  of  the  embarrassments  of  the 
present." 

If  all  of  the  members  of  the  church  had  been  willing  to  ask  for 
letters  of  dismission  to  other  churches,  there  would  have  been  no  need 
of  voting  a  dissolution  of  its  present  organization.  It  would  not 
have  been  dissolved.  It  would  simply  have  ceased  to  exist  in  a  mode 
authorized  by  our  system,  and  perfectly  consistent  with  the  vows  of 
the  covenant,  and  then,  if  it  had  been  deemed  expedient,  a  new  church 
could  have  been  formed.  But  it  was  perfectly  well  known  that  there 
was  a  large  portion  of  the  church  who  had  no  desire  to  be  dismissed 
to  other  'churches,  and  who  would  not  ask  for  letters.  Moreover 
those  individuals  who  were  deemed  an  embarrassment,  we  may  well 
suppose,  were  the  ones  least  likely  of  all  to  ask  for  letters.  The 
desired  new  organization  then  could  not  be  formed  in  accordance  with 
the  usual  and  well-known  principles  of  our  ecclesiastical  platform. 
It  became  necessary  therefore  to  devise  for  the  occasion  a  novel  and 
extraordinary  mode. 

The  step,  the  council  admit,  was  very  uncommon.     "  A  step  so 


20 

uncommon  is,  we  think,  made  expedient  by  reasons  as  peculiar." 
The  peculiarity  of  this  extraordinary  mode  was,  that  by  it  the  organ- 
ization could  be  dissolved  against  the  will  of*  such  as  would  not  ask 
for,  or  take,  such  letters  to  other  churches.  Hence  proceeded  the 
theory  of  the  power  of  a  mere  majority,  by  a  simple  vote,  at  once  and 
utterly  to  dissolve  the  existing  organization.  Notice  now  the  conse- 
quences that  it  draws  after  itself.  To  make  this  plan  effectual,  it  is 
indispensably  necessary  to  insist  that  the  dissolution  of  the  Church 
shall  not  be  conditioned  upon  the  previous  reception  of  its  members 
into  other  churches  ;  for  then,  as  before,  the  unwilling  ones  would 
prevent  the  dissolution,  for  they  would  neither  take  letters  to  other 
churches,  nor  ask  to  be  received.  The  dissolution  of  the  Church, 
therefore,  must  be  absolute  and  unconditional,  or  the  plan  will  not 
gain  its  end.  In  no  other  way  can  the  old  organization  be  dissolved, 
and  a  new  organization,  formed  for  the  purpose  and  clear  of  existing 
embarrassmeyits,  take  its  place.  This  new  theory,  it  must  be  con- 
fessed, was  skilfully  framed  for  the  occasion,  and  exactly  adapted  to 
gain  the  end  in  view ;  and  its  advocates  avow  their  principles,  and 
take  their  consequences,  with  unflinching  and  commendable  consist- 
ency. Let  us  look  at  its  application.  We  have  considered  the 
covenant,  by  which  the  members  of  the  Howard  Street  Church  were 
solemnly  bound  to  God,  and  through  God  to  each  other,  and  the  re- 
ciprocal rights  and  duties  growing  out  of  that  covenant. 

And  now  the  new  doctrine,  concerning  which  our  advice  is  asked, 
is  this,  that  a  simple  majority  of  so  many  of  the  brethren  of  the 
church  as  happened  to  be  present  at  any  legal  meeting  of  the  church, 
had  the  power  totally  to  dissolve  and  abrogate  this  covenant,  so  that 
all  the  members  of  the  church,  brethren  or  sisters,  present  or  absent, 
willing  or  unwilling,  and  by  whatever  ties  of  affection  united,  or  how- 
ever strong  their  desire  to  walk  together,  as  a  church,  in  the  ordi- 
nances of  the  gospel,  though  but  a  moment  before  in  covenant,  and 
members  of  the  same  church,  are,  after  the  vote,  no  longer  in  cove- 
nant, and  are  members  of  no  local  church,  and  of  course  are  under 
the  covenanted  Christian  watch  and  care  of  no  human  being  on  earth. 

No  sooner  have  seventeen  men  adopted  this  simple  sentence, 
"  Voted,  that  this  organization  is  hereby  dissolved,"  than  the  work 
is  done.  The  church  is  dead.  Its  bonds  are  dissolved,  and  its 
members  scattered.  A  new  organization  may,  indeed,  be  formed  in 
its  place,  but  no  human  power  can  restore  life  to  the  dead.  Our 
fathers  expressed  the  full  conviction  of  all  our  churches,  when  they 
said,  in  the  Cambridge  Platform,  that  the  whole  church  cannot  make 
even  one  member  no  member,  except  by  excommunication,  and  ex- 
communication cannot  be  inflicted  except  for  crime,  and  after  a  fair 
trial. 


21 

But  this  new  doctrine  teaches  us  that  a  mere  majority  of  the 
brethren,  at  a  given  meeting  of  the  church,  although  a  minority 
of  all  the  brethren  of  the  church,  and  a  very  small  minority  of  all 
the  members,  can,  by  a  single  vote,  make  every  member  no  member 
of  that  or  any  other  church. 

We  do  not  doubt  that  those  who  are  ignorant  of  the  facts  of  this 
.case,  will  read  this  statement  with  inexpressible  surprise,  and  perhaps 
with  no  small  degree  of  incredulity.  It  will  seem  to  them  impossible 
that  intelligent  Christian  men,  much  more,  leading  and  influential 
ministers  in  our  churches,  could,  by  any  course  of  influences,  be  led 
to  assume  such  a  position.  Yet  we  have  simply  stated  what  an  acci- 
dental majority  of  the  Howard  Street  Church  profess  to  have  done, 
what  leading  ministers  claim  that  they  had  a  right  to  do  ;  and  still 
more  wonderful,  the  right  to  do  which  they  still  contend  for,  as  es- 
sential to  the  independence  and  inalienable  rights  of  our  churches  ! 
The  simple  and  undeniable  facts  of  the  case  are  these.  The  Howard 
Street  Church,  at  the  time  when  the  council  advised  their  dissolution, 
consisted  of  170  members,  50  of  whom  were  males.  At  the  time  of 
the  disbanding  vote,  most,  if  not  all  of  these  were  still  members  of 
the  Church,  for,  although  some  had  taken  letters  to  other  churches, 
they  had  not  been  received.  This  Church,  on  the  evening  of  May 
4,  1847,  by  a  vote  of  17  males,  was  declared  to  be  dissolved,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  advice  of  a  mutual  council.* 

The  form  of  the  vote  was  this  :  "  Voted,  to  adopt  the  remainder 
of  the  Result  of  Council,  and  by  and  with  their  advice,  this  organiza- 
tion is  hereby  dissolved,  and  that  Deacons  Smith,  Foster,  and  Driver, 
be  a  committee  to  grant  letters  of  dismissions  and  recommendations, 
under  date  of  May  4,  '47,  to  all  the  remaining  members  of  the 
Church,  to  any  Orthodox  Congregational  Church  they  may  direct." 
Yeas  17,  nays  10. 

From  and  after  this  vote,  it  is  insisted  that  Howard  Street  Church 
ceased  to  exist,  and  that  those  once  members  of  it,  ceased  at  that 
moment  to  be  members  of  any  local  church  whatever.  It  follows,  of 
course,  that  nobody  had  the  right,  by  covenant  vows,  to  watch  over 
any  one  ;  and  as  for  admonition,  exhortation,  and  discipline,  the 
entire  ground  on  which  the  right  and  duty  of  exercising  them  once 
rested,  had  fallen  away.  True,  indeed,  a  committee  was  appointed 
in  the  vote  to  give  letters  of  dismission  and  recommendation,  to  other 
churches,  to  all  who  should  ask  for  them,  to  be  dated  on  the  night 
of  the  alleged  dissolution  of  the  Church.  But,  according  to  the  new 
theory,  they  ceased  to  be  members  of  the  Howard  Street  Church, 
even  before  they  had  asked,  or  could  ask,  for  a  dismission  from  it : 
for,  before  the  committee  could  meet,  the  Church  itself  had  ceased 

•  Appendix,  No.  11. 


22 

to  exist.  The  very  vote  bv  "which  they  were  appointed  dissolved  the 
church.  Much  more  had  they  ceased  to  be  members  of  the  Howard 
Street  Church,  according  to  this  new  doctrine,  before  they  were,  or 
could  be,  members  of  any  other  church. 

Yet  it  is  affecting  to  see  how  the  memory  of  the  good  old  ways  of 
our  fathers  lingered  about  them,  and,  in  spite  of  inconsistency,  modi- 
fied their  speech.  No  one  was  asking  for  a  dismission.  The  vote 
before  the  Church  was  not  to  dismiss  such  as  desired  it,  but  to  dis- 
band all,  whether  they  desired  it  or  not,  and  this  is  what  was,  in  fact, 
done  on  the  new  theory.  And  yet  the  committee  appointed  by  this 
suicidal  vote,  is  directed  to  give  letters  of  dismission  to  all  the  re- 
maining members  of  the  Church ;  just  as  if,  after  a  church  was  dis- 
banded, there  were  any  remaining  members — just  as  if  it  were 
possible  to  dismiss  any  one  from  a  non-existing  church.  But  this 
amiable  inconsistency  shows  how  hard  it  was  to  forget  the  good  old 
ways  of  our  fathers.  Letters  of  dismission  used  to  be  necessary  be- 
fore these  new  doctrines.  But  how  would  such  letters,  in  this  case, 
appear  ?  "  When  received  by  you,  their  connection  with  us  will  be 
dissolved."  But  the  committee  themselves  belong  to  no  church,  and 
have  no  connection  either  with  each  other,  or  with  those  whom  they 
profess  to  dismiss.  By  one  potent  vote,  of  seventeen  men,  all  bonds 
have  been  sundered,  all  ties  cut,  and  every  individual  who  was  once 
a  member  of  the  church,  floats  as  a  solitary  atom  on  the  surface  of 
the  ocean  of  this  cold  world.  The  committee  may  indeed  testify  that 
they  were  once  church  members,  in  good  standing.  Other  churches 
may  kindly  pick  them  up,  and  take  them  in,  if  they  see  fit ;  but  the 
idea  of  receiving  them  by  dismission  from  a  non-existing  Church,  and 
from  which  they  never  asked  a  dismission,  is  too  absurd  to  be  thought 
of  for  a  moment. 

Indeed,  the  committee,  or  some  of  them,  seem  afterwards  to  have 
become  aware  of  the  inconsistency  of  their  position  and  duties,  for 
to  this  day  all  of  them  have  never  met  or  acted  together.  Some 
have  received  letters  from  one  of  the  committee,  in  virtue  of  which, 
other  churches  have  admitted  them  to  their  communion.  Others, 
who  maintain  the  validity  of  the  dissolving  act,  remain  to  this  day  in 
connection  with  no  church  at  all. 

Such  is  a  compendious  view  of  the  facts  and  principles  with 
reference  to  which  we  are  requested  to  advise.  In  ordinary  circum- 
stances we  should  have  supposed  it  sufficient  merely  to  state  the  facts. 
Aside  from  the  influence  of  local  excitements,  particular  ends,  and 
personal  committals,  and  on  the  broad  ground  of  Congregational 
principles,  it  does  not  seem  to  us  that  there  is  room  for  a  moment's 
doubt.  And  Ave  cannot  refrain  from  expressing  both  sorrow  and 
wonder  that  it  has  become  necessary  seriously  to  argue  a  question 


23 

like  this.  But  local  causes  have  given  it  importance.  New  princi- 
ples have  been  introduced.  With  sorrow  we  say  it,  a  council  led  the 
way.  Men  of  talents  and  influence  are  committed  in  their  defence, 
and  even  a  conference  has  sustained  them  by  its  authority  ;  although 
we  are  happy  to  say  that  at  a  subsequent  meeting  a  majority  would 
have  voted  to  reconsider  their  decision,  had  not  the  vote  of  the 
moderator  produced  a  tie  and  thus  prevented  it.  Such  facts  as  these 
create  an  emergency.  We  feel  called  on,  therefore,  as  we  value  the 
very  life  of  our  system  and  of  the  principles  of  our  fathers,  to  give  a 
careful  and  thorough  consideration  to  these  new  doctrines. 

In  our  judgment,  therefore,  these  principles  are  utterly  and  funda- 
mentally erroneous,  and  the  proceedings  in  the  alleged  dissolution 
of  Howard  Street  Church  are  utterly  invalid,  for  the  following 
reasons : 

1.  They  are  in  direct  violation  of  the  most  obvious  and  best 
established  principles  and  usages  of  the  Congregational  system. 

2.  Independently  of  their  relations  to  the  covenant  with  God,  they 
are  in  violation  of  the  obvious  principles  of  natural  right. 

3.  But  especially  are  these  proceedings  inconsistent  with  the  obvi- 
ous and  well  established  import  of  the  covenant  with  God. 

4.  The  principles  and  precedents  thus  introduced  are  most  danger- 
ous in  their  practical  tendencies,  furnishing  an  instrument  of  de- 
struction to  be  used  in  every  case  of  difficulty  and  division  in  our 
churches. 

5.  The  defence  of  them  has  obliged  their  advocates  to  adopt 
principles  hitherto  unknown  to  our  churches  and  subversive  of  our 
whole  system. 

6.  The  main  argument  by  which  the  proceedings  in  question  are 
commonly  defended,  an  appeal  to  the  rights  of  majorities,  is  entirely 
devoid  T>f  force. 

7.  The  dissolving  act  was  improperly  recommended  to  the  church 
by  the  council  which  advised  it ;  the  church  not  having  voted  to 
submit  any  such  question  to  them  for  advice. 

8.  Even  if  on  general  principles  a  majority  had  power  to  disband 
a  church  against  the  will  of  a  minority,  yet  in  the  present  case  the 
church  had  established  by  special  legislation  a  rule  as  to  the  mode  of 
calling  meetings,  and  the  limitation  of  the  powers  of  majorities,  which 
clearly  proves  these  transactions  to  be  invalid. 

1.  From  our  previous  investigations  it  is  plain  that  if  any  principles 
of  the  Congregational  system  are  obvious,  undeniable  and  fundamental, 
they  are  these.  1st.  That  it  is  the  duty  of  all  regenerated  individuals 
to  enter  into  church  estate  in  particular  local  churches  whenever  God 
in  his  providence  renders  it  possible.  "  All  believers  ought,  as  God 
giveth  them  opportunity  thereunto,  to  endeavor  to  join  themselves 


24 

unto  a  particular  church,  and  that  in  respect  of  the  honor  of  Jesus 
Christ,  in  his  example  and  institution,  by  the  professed  acknowledg- 
ment of,  and  subjection  unto  the  order  and  ordinances  of  the  gospel ; 
as  also  in  respect  of  their  good  of  communion,  founded  upon  their 
visible  union,  and  contained  in  the  promises  of  Christ's  special 
presence  in  the  church  ;  whence  they  have  fellowship  with  him,  and 
in  him  one  with  another  ;  also,  for  the  keeping  of  them  in  the  way  of 
God's  commandments,  and  recovering  of  them  in  case  of  wandering, 
which  all  Christ's  sheep  are  subject  to  in  this  life,  being  unable  to 
return  themselves  ;  together  with  the  benefit  of  their  mutual  edifica- 
tion, and  of  their  posterity,  that  they  may  not  be  cut  off  from  the 
privileges  of  the  covenant.  Otherwise,  if  a  believer  offends,  he 
remains  destitute  of  the  remedy  provided  in  that  behalf.  And  should 
all  believers  neglect  this  duty  of  joining  to  all  particular  congrega- 
tions, it  might  follow  thereupon,  that  Christ  should  have  no  visible 
political  churches  upon  earth." — Platform,  chapter  4,  section  6. 
2d.  That  this  is  effected  by  means  of  a  mutual  covenant  with  each 
other,  which  is  enforced  by  the  covenant  with  God,  and  that  the 
organization  of  a  church  cannot  be  effected  in  any  other  way.  Platr 
form,  ch.  4,  sec.  1-3.  3d.  When  an  individual  has  come  into  such  a 
covenant  with  a  local  church,  he  cannot  be  thrown  out  of  it  by  the 
church,  except  for  crime,  but  must  remain  in  covenant  with  that  local 
church  till  received  by  another.  Of  all  these  positions  we  have 
already  given  abundant  proof. 

Such,  then,  are  the  obvious  and  well-known  principles  of  our  system. 
And  now  what  can  be  a  more  direct  and  absolute  violation  of  these 
principles  in  every  respect,  than  by  a  single  vote  of  a  majority  to 
dissolve  this  covenant,  and  to  throw  every  member  of  a  whole  church 
into  the  world,  with  none  who  has  a  covenant  right  to  watch  over, 
admonish,  exhort,  or  reprove  them  ? 

What  if  they  can,  perhaps,  join  other  churches  ?  They  have  no 
covenant  right  to  enter  another  church,  or  to  enjoy  its  ordinances. 
They  have  lost  the  title  to  church  privileges  with  which  they  were 
invested.  If  perchance  they  enjoy  them,  it  is  a  matter  of  mere 
grace  on  the  part  of  other  churches,  and,  as  we  shall  soon  show,  is 
contrary  to  Congregational  order.  Moreover  there  is  none  to  call 
them  to  account  if  they  do  not  seek  to  join  other  churches,  or  if  they 
fall  into  error  or  sin.  They  have  therefore  entirely  lost  what  the 
Platform  specifies  as  one  of  the  most  important  ends  of  church 
fellowship, "  the  keeping  of  them  in  the  way  of  God's  commandments, 
and  recovering  of  them  in  case  of  wandering,  (which  all  Christ's 
sheep  are  subject  to  in  this  life,)  being  unable  to  return  of  themselves. 
Otherwise,  if  a  believer  offends,  he  remains  destitute  of  the  remedy 
provided  in  that  behalf." 

2.  But  in  the  second  place,  thus  to  dissolve  a  church  by  the  vote  of 


25 

a  majority  is  an  entire  violation  of  the  laws  of  natural  right,  even  if 
no  covenant  with  God  were  involved. 

When  two  or  more  individuals  enter  into  a  covenant  with  each 
other,  even  in  worldly  things,  mutual  and  reciprocal  rights  are 
created,  so  that  one  or  more  individuals  cannot  absolve  themselves 
from  their  obligations  to  the  others,  without  their  consent.  A  majori- 
ty of  a  copartnership  cannot  rescind  their  copartnership  agreement, 
or  put  an  end  to  it  before  the  stipulated  time,  without  being  chargeable 
with  breach  of  covenant,  and  exposing  themselves  to  the  payment  of 
damages.  Hence  when  a  man  has  sworn,  even  to  his  own  injury, 
inspiration  tells  us  that  if  he  is  an  upright  man,  "  he  changeth  not." 

Is  this  true  in  the  affairs  of  this  world  ?  Do  even  the  men  of  this 
world  avow  this  principle  ?  And  shall  we  introduce  and  advocate  a 
lower  standard  of  morality  in  the  church  of  God,  which  ought  to  be 
the  salt  of  the  earth,  the  light  of  the  world  ?  Think  for  a  moment 
of  the  facts  of  the  case.  By  solemn  mutual  covenant  they  had  been 
received  into  the  church,  and  declared  entitled  to  all  its  privileges. 
They  had  been  welcomed  to  the  fellowship  of  the  blessings  of  the 
gospel.  A  fraternal  watch  over  them  had  been  pledged,  and  a 
mutual  {iledge  had  been  received.  What  right  then  has  one  part  of 
the  church,  without  the  consent  of  the  rest,  to  absolve  themselves 
from  obligations  thus  solemnly  assumed  ?  Much  more,  what  right 
have  they  to  arrogate  the  power  of  absolving  others  besides  themselves 
from  their  mutual  vows  ?  One  of  the  highest  charges  against  the 
papal  usurper  has  been  that  he  has  assumed  such  power.  "What 
right  have  they  to  declare  that  even  those  who  desire  to  remain 
united  in  covenant  promises  cannot  ?  What  worse  did  the  man  of 
sin  when  he  assumed  the  power  to  change  the  immutable  laws  of 
right  ?  It  seems  to  us  that  a  more  direct  and  palpable  violation  of 
the  laws  of  equity  cannot  be  conceived. 

Civilians  tell  us  that  it  is  a  principle  which  pervades  all  free  gov- 
ernments that  "  a  moral  power  equal  to  and  of  the  same  nature  with 
that  which  made,  alone  can  destroy."*  But  a  Congregational  church 
comes  into  existence  by  the  personal  covenant  of  every  individual 
member  composing  it,  with  every  other.  How  then  can  it  be  broken 
up  and  destroyed  without  the  personal  assent  of  all  the  covenantors  ? 
What  other  moral  power  is  equal  to  this,  and  of  the  same  nature  ? 
Certainly  not  the  vote  of  a  mere  majority.  It  exists  by  the  personal 
covenant  of  each  with  each,  it  can  cease  to  exist  only  when  each 
releases  each  from  that  covenant. 

Moreover,  jurists  inform  us  that  in  a  covenant  three  things  are 
involved  :  first,  the  agreement ;  second,  the  consideration  ;  third,  the 
things  to  be  done  or  omitted.     But  it  is  self-evident  that  to  take  away 

*  Story  and  Rawle  on  the  Constitution. 

4 


26 

the  consideration  in  view  of  which  the  covenant  was  made,  is  a  pal- 
pable act  of  injustice.  But  the  right  to  a  permanent  enjoyment  of 
church  privileges  in  a  particular  organization  is  always  a  consideration 
in  entering  into  such  a  covenant.  Without  this,  property  would  not 
be  invested,  or  sacrifices  made.  But  when  the  covenantors  feel  that 
they  can  secure  permanent  covenant  privileges  for  themselves  and  for 
their  children,  from  generation  to  generation,  then  they  will  erect  a 
house  of  worship,  set  up  the  table  of  the  Lord,  open  the  baptismal 
font,  and  settle  a  pastor  to  break  to  them  and  theirs  the  bread  of  life. 

Is  it  then  for  a  moment  to  be  endured,  that  after  all  this  solemn 
covenanting,  the  very  considerations  in  view  of  which  the  covenant 
was  formed,  and  sacrifices  made,  shall  be  taken  away  ?  Shall  a  man 
who  is  guilty  of  no  offence  be  told,  "  the  privileges  of  this  organiza- 
tion, much  as  you  value  them,  and  whatever  sacrifices  you  have  made 
for  them,  can  be  yours  no  longer.  True,  you  are  guilty  of  no 
disciplinable  offence.  We  cannot  directly  cast  you  out.  But  a 
majority  of  us  have  concluded  to  break  up  this  organization.  You 
may  go  where  you  please,  but  in  this  church  you  cannot  stay."  Is 
it  for  a  moment  to  be  endured  that  such  acts  as  this  shall  be  done 
unrebuked  in  the  church  of  God  ?  Who,  when  members  of  a  church, 
brothers  and  sisters,  have  done  nothing  at  all  to  violate  their  covenant, 
has  a  right  to  despoil  them  of  those  great  spiritual  privileges  which 
were  their  main  consideration  in  entering  into  the  covenant,  and  which 
gold  and  the  most  precious  gems  can  neither  purchase  nor  equal  ? 
The  pretence  of  giving  an  equivalent  for  these,  by  letters  of  commen- 
dation to  other  churches,  is  no  defence  against  the  charge  of  injustice. 
They  have  now  church  privileges.  These  belong  to  them  by  cove- 
nant. They  are  their  own.  If  they  choose  to  keep  them,  no  power 
on  earth  has  a  right  to  take  them  away.  No  power  has  a  right  to 
insist  that  they  shall  give  them  up,  and  take  what  others  are  pleased 
to  call  an  equivalent  instead.  There  is  no  equivalent,  when  the  most 
cherished  treasures  of  the  heart  are  thus  rudely  torn  away. 

3.  Nor  is  this  all.  Even  if  all  the  members  of  a  church  were 
willing  to  release  one  another  from  their  mutual  vows,  and  to  throw 
one  another  back  into  an  uncovenanted  state,  they  have  and  can  have 
no  right  before  God,  to  do  it.  It  will  be  noticed  that  we  do  not  say 
that  all  the  members  of  a  church  may  not  by  mutual  consent  bring  it 
to  a  close,  by  regularly  passing  from  it  into  other  churches.  In  this 
way  no  one  is  thrown  back  into  the  world  in  an  uncovenanted  state 
with  none  who  has  a  right  to  watch  over  him.  But  we  do  say  that 
if  all  of  the  members  of  a  church  were  desirous  to  throw  themselves 
out  of  a  state  of  fellowship,  into  the  world,  by  dissolving  their  cove- 
nant, they  have  no  right  to  do  it.  Duty  to  God  requires  them  not 
only  to  enter  into  church  estate,  but  to  continue  in  it.     This,  as  we 


27 

have  proved,  is  fully  stated  in  the  Platform,  and  by  all  our  standard 
authorities.  It  is  recognized  in  the  covenant  found  in  Cotton  Mather's 
Ratio,  and  which  was  the  common  form  in  1720.  "  We  acknowledge 
our  everlasting  and  indispensable  obligations  to  glorify  our  God,  in 
all  the  duties  of  a  godly,  and  a  sober,  and  a  righteous  life,  and  very 
particularly  in  the  duties  of  a  church  state  and  a  body  of  people 
associated  for  an  obedience  to  him  in  all  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel." 
It  is  recognized  in  the  covenant  of  the  Tabernacle  (  hurch  in  Salest 
"We  apprehending  ourselves  called  of  God  into  a  gospel  church 
state,"  and  again — tl  We  acknowledge  our  everlasting  and  indispen- 
sable obligations  to  glorify  our  God  in  all  the  duties  of  a  holy,  sober 
and  religious  life.  Depending,  therefore,  on  his  powerful  grace,  we 
engage  to  walk  together,  particularly  in  a  church  state,  in  the  faith 
and  order  of  the  gospel,  as  far  as  we  shall  have  the  same  revealed  to 
us  by  die  word  and  spirit  of  God.'* 

The  first  church  in  Boston  entered  into  covenant  "in  the  name  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  obedience  to  his  holy  wise  and  divine 
ordinances,"  and  "  desirous  to  unite  into  one  congregation  or  church 
under  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  "solemnly  and  religiously,  as  in 
his  most  holy  presence,"  "  promised  and  bound  themselves"  to  walk 
together  in  church  estate,  and  in  the  discharge  of  its  duties. 

The  original  covenant  of  the  first  church  in  Charlestown  was  in 
substance  the  same.     At  the  present  time  it  includes  this  passage  : 

"  You  do  solemnly  and  religiously,  as  in  His  most  holy  presence, 
covenant  and  promise,  through  his  grace,  to  walk  in  all  your  ways, 
and  in  communion  with  this  particular  church  in  special,  as  members 
of  it,  according  to  the  rules  of  the  gospel.  This  you  severally 
covenant  and  engage. 

"  We,  therefore,  the  members  of  this  church,  [here  the  members  of 
the  church  ris  .  ]  do  now  publicly  declare  our  cordial  reception  of  you, 
as  members  of  the  church  of  Christ,  and  of  this  branch  of  it  in 
particular. 

"  And  we  covenant  and  promise,  on  our  part,  to  watch  over  you 
agreeable  to  the  directions  of  the  great  Head  of  the  church,  and  to 
treat  you  as  members  in  full  communion  with  this  church,  and  entitled 
to  all  its  privileges." 

The  \riews  of  the  modern  churches  of  Boston  are  well  represented 
by  the  toll  owing  extract  from  the  covenant  of  Park  Street  Church, 
drawn  up  by  Dr.  Griffin. 

"  We  welcome  you  to  this  fellowship  with  us  in  the  blessings  of  the 
Gospel,  and  on  our  part  engage  to  watch  over  you,  and  seek  your 
edification,  as  long  as  you  shall  continue  among  us.  Should  you 
have  occasion  to  remove,  it  will  be  your  duty  to  seek,  and  ours  to 
grant  a  recommendation  to  another  church ;  for  hereafter  you  can 


28 

never  withdraw  from  the  watch  and  communion  of  the  saints,  without 
a  breach  of  covenant. 

"  And  now,  beloved  in  the  Lord,  let  it  be  impressed  on  your 
minds,  that  you  have  entered  into  solemn  circumstances  from  which 
you  can  never  escape.  Wherever  you  go,  these  vows  will  be  upon 
you.  They  will  follow  you  to  the  bar  of  God,  and  in  whatever 
world  you  may  be  fixed,  will  abide  upon  you  to  eternity.  You  can 
never  again  be  as  you  have  been.  You  have  unalterably  committed 
yourselves,  and  henceforth  you  mustbe  the  servants  of  God." 

In  most  of  the  Orthodox  churches  of  Boston  these  views  are 
explicitly  stated.  In  all  they  are  understood.  And  beyond  all  doubt 
this  is  the  common  understanding  of  our  churches  at  this  day. 
After  the  covenant  of  the  Old  South  Church,  the  following  statement 
is  found  : 

"  This  sacred  covenant  has  been  deliberately  entered  into,  and  its 
high  obligations  voluntarily  assumed,  by  every  member  of  this  church. 
Those  obligations  are  now,  and  will  be  until  death,  upon  every  one 
who  has  assumed  them  ;  for  he  that  "  openeth  his  mouth  unto  the 
Lord,  cannot  go  back."  See  Judg.  xi.  85.  Luke  ix.  62.  Heb.  x. 
38,  39.     2  Pet.  ii.  20,  21, 

The  views  of  this  church  of  the  importance  of  the  duty  of 
Christian  watchfulness  over  each  other,  which  is  pledged  in  the  cove- 
nant, are  impressively  stated  in  the  following  passage  : 

"  When  in  their  company,  converse  frequently  upon  the  things 
pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  God ;  and  particularly  of  your  duties 
and  obligations  as  the  covenant  people  of  God.  See  Mai.  iii.  16. 
Heb.  x.  24,  and  iii.  13.  '  This  practice,'  says  one,  '  would  be  of 
eminent  service  to  help  the  memory,  in  regard  to  our  covenant  obli- 
gations, as  also  to  quicken  unto  obedience.  Thus,  for  instance,  when 
a  brother  is  observed  to  be  going  into  temptation,  or  in  present 
danger  of  falling  into  some  transgression,  it  is  not  improbable  that 
these  words,  spoken  in  a  suitable  manner,  in  his  hearing,  REMEM- 
BER YOUR  COVENANT,  would  prevent  his  fall ;  or,  if  he  has 
already  fallen,  it  may  be  those  words  would  be  the  means  of  recover- 
ing him  out  of  the  snare  of  the  devil,  and  of  bringing  him  unto 
unfeigned  repentance.'  " 

If,  then,  it  is  conceded  and  taught  on  all  hands,  that  it  is  a  part  of 
our  covenant  with  God  that  we  will  come  into  covenant  with  a  par- 
ticular church,  and  continue  in  a  church  state  till  death,  how  can  a 
church  throw  themselves  out  of  such  a  state  without  a  breach  of 
covenant  with  God  ?  Even  if  it  is  done  under  color  of  an  intent, 
as  individuals,  to  join  other  churches,  still,  to  dissolve  the  covenant, 
and  withdraw  Christian  watch  before  all  are  under  the  care  of  other 
churches,  is  an  unjustifiable  mode  of  doing  it.  Covenanted  duties 
orbid  it. 


29 

By  doing  it  they  throw  themselves  into  a  state  in  which  they  have 
no  assurance  that  all  will  ever  be  brought  back  into  a  state  of  cove- 
nant again.  They  throw  up  their  watch  when  they  do  not  and  can- 
not know  that  grievous  wolves  will  not  come  and  tear  and  devour  the 
lambs  of  the  flock,  before  they  are  gathered  into  any  fold  again.  It 
is  on  this  ground  that  the  Platform  denied  that  the  whole  church  has 
a  right  to  throw  up  her  watch  over  even  one  of  her  members,  before 
he  is  safely  received  by  another  church.  This  is  not  a  mere  positive 
rule,  it  is  based  upon  the  principles  of  eternal  right.  Much  less,  then, 
has  a  church  a  right,  even  by  unanimous  consent,  to  throw  up  their 
watch  over  each  other,  and  leave  every  member  of  the  church  a 
wanderer  in  this  world  of  snares  and  temptations.  If  any  should  in 
consequence  of  such  an  act  fall  into  sin  and  misery,  and  God  should 
inquire  of  any  one  of  the  former  members  of  the  church,  where  is 
thy  brother  ?  will  it  avail  him  to  say  I  know  not ;  am  I  my  brother's 
keeper  ?  What  if  he  has  voted  to  absolve  himself  from  his  vows  to 
watch  over  him  ?     Will  God  hold  him  absolved  ? 

4.  Upon  the  dangerous  tendency  of  the  principles  and  precedents 
which  we  are  considering,  few  words  are  needed.  Admit  the  right 
of  a  church  thus  to  disband  itself  by  the  vote  of  a  majority,  for  the 
sake  of  getting  rid  of  "  embarrassing"  members,  and  what  minority 
in  a  time  of  division  or  excitement  would  be  safe  ?  One  or  two  bold 
and  devoted  men  might  be  very  embarrassing  to  a  backsliding  and 
worldly-minded  majority.  Some  influential  person  who  fears  disci- 
pline, may  regard  those  who  desire  to  bring  his  case  up  as  very 
embarrassing  elements  in  the  church.  Nothing  now  remains  to  be 
done  but  to  watch  his  opportunity,  rally  his  forces,  gain  a  majority 
and  vote  to  dissolve  the  church  and  form  a  new  organization  expressly 
for  the  purpose,  in  which  these  embarrassments  shall  not  exist.  Is 
it  said,  this  cannot  be  done  without  the  advice  of  a  council  ?  We 
reply  there  is  no  such  provision  in  any  of  our  standard  writers. 
They  have  given  no  rules  for  dissolving  churches,  by  repealing  the  cove- 
nant. The  case  of  course  never  occurred  to  them.  t  Their  principles 
led  them  to  no  such  results.  It  is  indeed  usual,  but  not  essential,  to 
form  a  church  by  advice  of  council,  with  especial  reference  to  the 
question  whether  it  is  needed.  But  if  a  church  exists  and  is  admitted 
to  be  needed,  and  it  is  in  principle  right  for  them  to  dissolve  them- 
selves and  reorganize  again  for  the  sake  of  getting  rid  of  embar- 
rassing members,  then  we  say,  there  is  no  provision  in  any  of  our 
writers  that  forbids  them  to  do  it  on  their  own  judgment.  And  even 
if  it  were  orderly  to  do  it  only  through  advice  of  council,  still  they 
can  do  it  without  advice,  or  even  against  it.  Moreover,  in  times  of 
excitement  on  disputed  questions  which  affect  many  churches,  the 
majority  of  a  church  may  easily  call  a  council  of  such  ministers  and 


30 

churches  as  are  known  to  be  hostile  to  an  odious  minority,  and  by 
their  advice  disband  and  reorganize  again,  leaving  out  the  embarrass- 
ing minority.  Who  cannot  foresee  the  end  to  which  such  principles 
would  conduct,  if  once  introduced  into  our  system  ?  Men  might  be 
virtually  excommunicated  without  charge  or  trial,  or  opportunity  of 
defence,  and  in  every  division  and  difficulty,  the  question  of  dissolu- 
tion would  come  up.  Is  it  not,  then,  the  part  both  of  wisdom  and 
duty  to  foresee  the  ruinous  results  to  which  they  tend,  and  resist  them 
most  strenuously  at  the  outset  ?  One  thing  is  sure,  if  we  do  not 
desire  to  work  an  entire  revolution  in  our  system,  and  utterly  to 
explode  the  principles  and  usages  of  our  fathers,  we  are  bound  to 
regard  these  new  doctrines  with  unmitigated  disapprobation  and  dis- 
pleasure. 

5.  The  unsoundness  of  the  principles  in  question  is  also  clearly 
evinced  by  the  grounds  which  their  advocates  are  naturally,  and  of 
necessity,  led  to  assume  in  their  defence.  Since  the  right  of  a  ma- 
jority to  throw  a  whole  church  out  of  a  state  of  covenant  fellowship 
is  to  be  defended,  it  becomes  necessary  to  depreciate  the  necessity 
and  importance  of  particular  church  covenants,  or  of  being  in  con- 
nection with  any  local  church  at  all.  The  community  has,  therefore, 
been  told  by  leading  ministers,  in  public  arguments  on  this  subject, 
before  the  pastors  and  delegates  of  a  conference  of  churches  and 
the  attendant  assembly,  that  the  Bible  nowhere  expressly  requires  a 
covenant  of  the  members  of  a  church  to  walk  together  in  the  same 
church,  as  essential  either  to  salvation  or  the  church  state,  and  that 
there  is  no  certain  evidence  that  the  apostolic  churches  were  so  con- 
stituted by  a  formal  mutual  covenant  among  their  members  as  to 
make  a  dissolution  inconsistent  with  church  order,  or  their  Christian 
profession.  Their  covenant,  it  is  intimated,  was  only  with  their  great 
Head  ;  they  were  held  together  only  by  inward  ties  ;  and  worshipped 
together  or  apart,  as  the  case  required.  Of  the  same  nature  is  the 
theory  to  which  they  resort,  of  a  membership  in  a  general  or  Catholic 
church,  which  still  continues  after  a  particular  church  is  disbanded. 
In  consequence  of  this,  they  tell  us,  the  members  of  a  disbanded 
church  are  not  unchurched,  nor  deprived  of  any  of  their  church 
rights  and  privileges.  This  membership  in  the  church  general  they 
seem  to  think  almost  or  quite  equal  to  that  in  any  particular  church. 

If  the  question  at  issue  were,  whether  Congregational  views  of 
the  church  covenant  be  right  or  not,  and  if  our  brethren  were  ap- 
pealing to  scripture  to  prove  them  wrong, — all  this,  if  true,  would  be 
very  much  in  point.  But  the  issue  being  what  it  is,  viz.  :  What  are 
Congregational  principles  and  usages  ? — we  are  not  called  on  here 
to  discuss  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  these  theories,  though  it  would  be 
easy  to  show  that  they  are  utterly  unsound.     It  is  enough  here  to 


31 

remark,  that  they  are  directly  at  war  with  the  principles  of  our  actual 
system,  as  illustrated  by  existing  usages,  and  as  laid  down  in  all  our 
leading  writers.  They  all,  with  one  voice,  argue  that  the  Christians  of 
the  primitive  churches  were  united  by  mutual  covenants,  and  that  the 
power  to  watch  over  and  discipline  each  other,  which  they  undeniably 
had  and  exercised,  could  not  be  derived  from  any  other  source. 
'*  We  see  not  otherwise,"  says  the  Cambridge  Platform,  "how  mem- 
bers can  have  church  power  over  one  another  mutually."  The 
Platform  also  strongly  inculcates  the  duty  of  believers  "  to  join 
themselves  unto  a  particular  church,"  out  of  regard  both  to  the  au- 
thority of  Christ  and  to  their  own  good. 

Hooker  calls  the  Presbyterian  theory  "that  a  pastor  can  be  a  mem- 
ber of  the  visible  church,  though  he  be  a  member  of  no  particular 
congregation"  (church),  a  "new  paradox." 

lie  shows  its  absurdity  thus  :  "  All  particular  congregations  are 
all  the  members  that  the  visible  Church  hath ;  therefore,  he  that  is 
not  a  member  of  a  particular  congregation,  is  no  member  of  a  visible 
Church." 

Yet  on  the  Presbyterian  theory,  a  minister  has  ties  to  Presbvte- 
ries,  Synods,  &c,  and  can  be  disciplined;  but  the  members  of  a  dis- 
banded church  belong  to  no  particular  visible  church,  have  no  tie  to 
any  organization,  and  are  liable  to  no  discipline.  Much  more  would 
our  fathers  call  this  modern  theory  "  a  new  paradox." 

Hooker  also  expressly  states  that  when  we  speak  of  a  general,  or 
universal,  or  Catholic,  visible  church,  the  word  church  is  only  a  ge- 
neric term,  and  that  "  such  a  Catholic  Church  is  never  to  be  seen 
but  in  particular  congregations  (churches),  nor  yet  ever  exerciseth 
its  power  alone,  (or  seorsim'),  but  only  in  the  several  assemblies." 
Indeed,  all  of  our  fathers  regarded  the  idea  of  an  organic  universal 
visible  church,  with  officers  and  sacraments,  as  the  very  radical  error 
of  the  papacy.  They  also  rejected,  decidedly,  the  idea  that  the  right 
to  the  privileges  of  the  church  was  derived  from  union  to  any  kind 
of  universal  church,  visible  or  invisible.  We  have  already  quoted 
Hooker  to  this  effect.  Again,  he  says  expressly,  in  discussing  the 
issue  between  the  Congregationalists  and  their  opponents,  "  Confed- 
erating makes  persons  members  of  visible  churches  ;  those  who  are 
not  confederate  we  conceive  no  members  of  a  visible  church  :  and, 
therefore,  in  that  condition  they  have  no  right,  nor  in  a  right  order 
can  challenge  the  benefits  or  privileges  of  members,  nor  can  any 
officer  in  a  right  order  dispense  them  unto  such."  Survey,  part  III., 
eh.  2. 

He  states  the  position  of  Hudson,  whom  he  is  opposing,  substan- 
tially thus:  One  in  a  state  of  membership  with  the  Church  Catholic 
hath  thereby  a  right  unto  all  church  privileges  ;  and  even  if  he  see 


32 

fit  to  join  a  particular  church,  that  does  not  give  him  any  new  right 
to  church  privileges.  All  proceeds  from  his  membership  with  the 
Catholic  Church.  This  he  proves  to  be  "  an  open  contradiction  in 
terms  to  God's  revealed  method." — Survey,  part  I.,  ch.  15.  Cotton, 
in  his  "  Way  of  the  Congregational  Churches  cleared,"  is  no  less 
explicit.  And  the  Cambridge  Platform  teaches  that  believers,  if 
they  are  not  in  church  order,  cannot  enjoy  communion  ecclesiastical, 
political,  although,  like  the  twelve  disciples  at  Ephesus  who  had  not 
been  regularly  admitted  to  the  church,  in  the  usual  manner,  they 
may  be  professed  believers  in  Christ,  and,  in  that  sense,  members  of 
the  militant  visible  church.  But  regular  ecclesiastical  communion, 
according  to  the  Platform,  belongs  only  to  such  as  "  walk  according 
to  the  church  order  of  the  gospel,"  that  is,  in  local  churches.  They 
also  expressly  deny  any  universal  visible  church,  through  union  with 
which  believers  can  obtain  a  right  to  regular  ecclesiastical  communion 
in  local  churches.  This  can  be  obtained  only  through  a  covenanted 
union  with  particular  churches. — Ch.  2,  sec.  4.  Hence,  as  Hooker 
says,  while  not  thus  united,  no  officer  can,  in  a  right  order,  dispense 
church  privileges  unto  them. 

Such,  then,  are  the  fundamental  principles  and  accredited  usages 
of  Congregationalism  on  this  point.  But  these  theories  of  the  defend- 
ers of  the  church-dissolving  power,  tend  directly  to  lead  the  com- 
munity to  believe  that  it  is  of  very  little  consequence  whether  they 
are  members  of  a  particular  church  or  not,  or  are  in  a  covenant  or 
not,  and  thus  to  aim  a  blow  at  the  very  vitals  of  our  churches,  and 
utterly  dissolve  the  bonds  of  our  whole  system.  Who  would  have 
expected  to  hear  such  sentiments  from  pastors  of  New  England 
Congregational  churches  ?  How  unsound  must  be  that  position,  the 
defence  of  which  impels  and  obliges  them  to  promulgate  such  theories. 
But,  above  all,  who  could  have  imagined  that  such  views  could  be 
put  forth  under  the  pretext  of  defending  the  fundamental  principles 
and  accredited  usages  of  our  church  polity  !  Had  they  charged  our 
fathers  with  gross  error,  and  justified  their  antagonists,  and  set  up 
the  standard  of  radical  reform,  all  of  this  line  of  argument  would 
have  been  perfectly  consistent.  But  to  claim  to  be  inspired  by  rev- 
erence for  the  fundamental  principles  and  accredited  usages  of  our 
fathers,  to  engage  with  all  their  might  in  the  work  of  utterly  explod- 
ing, and  absolutely  and  thoroughly  destroying  them,  is  indeed  a 
phenomenon  that  fills  us  with  undissembled  wonder  and  astonishment. 

What,  then,  it  may  be  asked,  can  be  that  main  ground  upon 
which  proceedings  such  as  these  are  defended  ?  Whenever  good 
and  intelligent  men  go  thus  far  astray,  it  is  not  commonly  under  the 
influence  of  absolute  error,  but  of  some  important  truth,  either  par- 
tially apprehended,  or  applied  out  of  its  proper  sphere.     So  in  the 


33 

present  ease,  the  advocates  of  these  new  doctrines  profess,  and,  we 
do  not  doubt,  with  sincerity,  to  be  swayed  by  a  supreme  regard  to 
the  great  principle,  that,  in  a  Congregational  church,  it  is  the  right 
of  the  majority  to  administer  the  government  according  to  their  will. 
In  defending  their  course,  the  Tabernacle  Church  appeal  to  "  the 
inalienable  rights  of  majorities."  The  conference  also  say  in  their 
vote,  "  whereas,  it  is  an  admitted  principle  that  in  the  action  of  Con- 
gregational Churches  laid  down  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  the 
records  and  symbols  of  our  churches,  that  majorities  govern :  and, 
whereas,  we  find  no  accredited  precedents  in  the  usages  of  the  church 
to  the  contrary,  and  do  not  feel  willing  to  institute  one, — therefore 
resolved,  that  the  claim  of  our  brethren  to  be  the  late  Howard  Street 
Church  ought  not  to  be  allowed,  and  it  is  not  allowed."  We  are 
happy  to  learn  that  all  attempts,  by  the  pastors  of  churches,  to  ex- 
ercise or  establish  a  power  of  veto,  or  of  suspension,  by  the  pastor, 
of  the  acts  of  majorities  in  the  church,  are  not  accredited  precedents. 
_  We  are  of  the  same  opinion.  We  not  only  freely  admit,  but  de- 
cidedly maintain,  that  it  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  our  system  that 
the  majority  shall  govern.  But  all  who  attempt  to  defend  the  pro- 
ceedings in  question  by  this  principle,  err  in  both  the  particulars  above 
specified.  In  the  first  place,  they  do  but  partially  apprehend  the 
principle  to  which  they  appeal,  and  in  the  second  place,  they  apply 
it  out  of  its  sphere. 

Although  the  power  of  government  undeniably  resides  in  the  ma- 
jox-itj^,  yet  they  can  exercise  that  power  only  within  given  limits,  and 
in  accordance  with  certain  fixed  principles. 

These  principles  and  limits  are  established  sometimes  by  the  nature 
of  things,  and  the  great  law  of  natural  right,  at  other  times  by  the 
fundamental  principles  of  our  ecclesiastical  system ;  at  others,  by 
express  authority  of  the  word  of  God,  and  again,  by  special  legisla- 
tion. Indeed,  it  is  admitted  in  all  equitable  governments,  that  the 
supreme  ruling  power,  whether  a  monarch,  an  aristocracy,  or  a  de- 
mocratic majority,  ought  not  to  have  arbitrary  or  unlimited  authority 
in  government,  but  to  be  limited  within  a  fixed  and  definite  sphere. 
The  inhabitants  of  England  have  well-defined  individual  rights,  which 
neither  king,  lords,  nor  commons,  nor  all  combined,  are  allowed  to 
touch.  ^  So,  too,  they  have  equally  inviolable  civil,  social,  and  reli- 
gious rights.  The  constitution  of  this  nation,  and  those  of  the  par- 
ticular states,  set  forth  bills  of  individual,  civil,  social,  and  religious 
rights,  which  no  majority  can  abrogate.  Moreover,  the  legislation 
of  all  the  states  is,  by  the  national  constitution,  stringently  restrained 
within  definite  limits.  For  example,  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus  cannot  be  suspended  except  in  cases  of  rebellion  or 
5 


34 

invasion.  No  bill  of  attainder,  or  ex  post  facto  law,  can  be  passed. 
The  freedom  of  the  press  and  of  debate  cannot  be  taken  away.  The 
right  to  bear  arms,  to  assemble  for  discussion,  or  religious  worship, 
and  to  petition,  is  inviolable.  No  title  of  nobility  can  be  granted. 
No  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts  can  be  passed.  Within 
these  and  similar  limits,  some  established  on  the  ground  of  natural 
right,  others  by  positive  legislation,  majorities  are  obliged  to  act  in 
all  our  states.  Within  definite  limits,  then,  and  in  accordance  with 
certain  fixed  principles,  majorities  rule.  They  would  become  the 
very  worst  of  despots  if  it  were  not  so.  The  difficult  problem  in  de- 
mocratic governments  is,  not  to  defend  the  rights  of  majorities,  but 
of  minorities  and  of  individuals.  The  strong  are  not  in  danger,  but  the 
weak.  Hence,  if  while  all  free  civil  systems  defend  individual  rights 
and  those  of  minorities,  with  sedulous  care,  Congregationalism  leaves 
them  without  defence,  a  Congregational  church  is  the  worst  of  des- 
potisms. If,  while  civil  systems  will  not  allow  a  law  to  be  passed, 
even  by  a  unanimous  vote,  impairing  the  validity  of  contracts,  Con- 
gregationalism gives  to  a  mere  majority  the  right  of  utterly  dissolving 
the  most  solemn  and  affecting  covenant  ever  framed  in  the  universe, 
it  would  be  a  system  deserving  of  the  highest  and  most  unmitigated 
execration.  But  it  is  not  so.  Nothing  is  more  notorious,  and  more 
universally  admitted  by  our  churches,  and  all  our  standard  writers, 
than  that  the  power  of  majorities  in  Congregational  churches  is  lim- 
ited, always  by  natural  right,  the  word  of  God,  the  fundamental 
principles  of  our  polity,  and  often  by  special  legislation,  in  each 
church  for  itself.  Illustrations  of  the  truth  of  these  remarks  will 
occur  at  once,  to  every  thoughtful  mind. 

No  majority  has  a  right  to  expel  a  member  from  the  church,  who 
has  been  guilty  of  no  offence — nor  to  expel  any  one  without  trial,  or 
an  opportunity  of  defence.  No  majority  of  a  church  has  a  right  to 
violate  their  covenant  with  God.  No  majority  has  aright  to  promul- 
gate infidel  principles,  nor,  in  short,  to  violate  any  principle  of  that 
universal  law  of  right,  by  which  even  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth 
admits  himself  to  be  bound,  and  in  the  universal  observance  of  which 
in  his  own  judgment  his  highest  glory  lies.  This  truth  is  well 
expressed  in  a  manual  of  church  discipline  recently  published,  to 
which  we  refer  at  this  time  because  the  originator  and  advocate  of 
the  new  doctrines  which  we  are  considering,  was  one  of  the  sub- 
committee by  whom  it  was  drawn  up.  "  A  church,"  say  that  com- 
mittee, "  is  not  a  simple  unrestricted  democracy ;  inasmuch  as  it  is 
subject  to  the  authority  of  its  king  and  sovereign,  who  has  given  laws 
which  must  regulate  and  control  the  acts  of  the  brotherhood." 
Nothing  can  be  more  true  than  this.     And  if  this  is  so,  then  there  are 


35 

certain  things  which  not  only  no  majority,  but  not  even  the  whole 
church,  although  by  a  unanimous  vote,  has  any  power  or  right  to  do. 

And  now  in  all  solemnity  we  ask,  when  or  whore  has  the  king  and 
sovereign  of  the  church  given  even  to  a  whole  church,  although  acting 
unanimously,  a  right  so  to  dissolve  a  solemn  mutual  covenant  to  watch 
over  one  another  as  Christian  brethren,  a  covenant  assumed  before 
the  universe,  with  this  most  solemn  and  affecting  pledge,  ,w  I  set  my 
seal  to  a  full  determination  that  in  life  and  death,  I  will  be  faithful 
to  this  covenant.  This  people  is  my  people,  and  this  God  is  my  God. 
Thus  I  promise  and  declare,"  so  to  dissolve  such  a  covenant  that  not 
one  member  of  that  church  shall  be  any  longer  in  covenant  with 
another,  or  with  any  other  church  to  which  he  can  say,  this  is  my 
people  and  this  is  my  home  ? 

Much  more  earnestly  do  we  ask,  when  and  where  has  the  great 
Lawgiver  and  Head  of  the  church  given  the  right  to  a  mere  majority 
of  the  brethren  who  happen  to  be  at  a  particular  meeting  of  the 
church,  to  declare  this  covenant  dissolved  throughout  the  whole 
church,  so  that  not  one  brother  or  sister  is  any  longer  in  covenant 
with  another,  and  that  too  whilst  members  are  protesting  against  the 
act  as  a  violation  of  their  most  sacred  and  cherished  rights  ? 

Will  it  be  said  in  reply  to  this,  we  cannot  admit  the  principle  that 
a  minority  can  veto  the  act  of  a  majority  ?  We  reply,  it  is  not  the 
minority  which  in  such  cases  vetoes  the  act,  but  its  own  intrinsic 
unlawfulness.  It  is  at  war  with  the  great  laws  of  truth  and  righteous- 
ness, established  by  the  King  and  Head  of  the  church,  and  His 
authority  pronounces  it  invalid. 

Indeed,  it  seems  to  us  wonderful  that  any  one  should  suppose  that 
it  is  an  essential  part  of  Congregationalism,  that  the  action  of  majori- 
ties should  always  be  held  valid — and  that  the  Essex  South  Conference 
could  find  no  accredited  precedents  in  the  usages  of  the  churches  to 
the  contrary. 

What  is  our  system  of  ex-parte  councils  but  a  deliberate,  designed, 
systematic  check  upon  the  abuse  of  the  power  of  majorities  ?  So 
Mather  in  his  Ratio  states  the  case,  among  our  earliest  usages  and 
precedents. 

Upham  also  says,  that  one  great  object  of  Congregationalism  is  to 
preserve  every  individual  in  the  full  possession  of  his  religious  rights, 
and  that  ex-parte  councils  were  designed  to  defend  them,  "by  check- 
ing the  violent  and  unjust  proceedures  which  so  often  characterize  a 
dominant  party."  Therefore  he  calls  them  "  a  sort  of  key-stone  to 
the  system,  which  binds  and  consolidates  the  arch  of  the  fabric,  and 
gives  it  strength." 

Punchard  also  says,  that  these  councils  "  furnish  an  effectual  check  to 
the  exertion  of  arbitrary  power  on  the  part  of  a  majority  of  a  church." 


36 

The  very  genius  of  our  system,  therefore,  requires  that  the  action 
of  the  majority  in  the  present  case  be  declared  invalid,  as  contrary  to 
the  laws  of  equity  and  of  God.  Even  if  such  were  not  the  fact,  it 
would  be  invalid  because  at  war  with  the  most  firmly  established 
principles  and  accredited  usages  of  the  Congregational  system.  We 
have  shown  that  nothing  can  be  more  explicit,  nothing  more  univer- 
sally recognized,  than  the  principle  laid  down  in  the  Cambridge  Plat- 
form, "  the  church  cannot  make  a  member  no  member,  but  by 
excommunication."  What  can  be  more  directly  at  war  with  this  than 
to  make  the  members  of  a  whole  church,  no  members,  by  the  vote  of 
a  majority,  or  indeed  by  any  vote  at  all  ? 

7.  But  even  if  it  were  possible  to  admit  the  idea  that  a  bare 
majority  could  disband  the  church  against  the  wishes  and  protest  of  a 
minority,  still  in  this  case  the  facts  are  such  as  to  show  that  it  has  not 
been  regularly  and  properly  done.  Much  weight  has  been  attached 
to  the  fact  that  a  council  advised  the  dissolution.  But  in  reply  to 
this  it  should  be  said,  that  the  question  was  never  properly  brought 
before  a  council.  There  was  no  vote  of  the  church  to  submit  such  a 
question  to  a  council.  No  one  even  pretends  that  such  was  the  fact 
when  the  church  decided  to  call  the  council.  They  voted  to  call  a 
council  solely  for  the  dismission  of  their  pastor,  Rev.  Mr.  Mann,* 
and  appointed  a  committee  to  prepare  and  send  out  the  letters  mis- 
sive. That  committee,  unauthorized  by  the  church,  and  on  their  own 
responsibility  solely,  inserted  the  clause,  "  and  to  advise  them  on 
other  difficulties."  The  church,  therefore,  did  not  call  the  council 
to  advise  on  this  matter,  and  no  opposition  was  made  to  calling  the 
particular  council  which  met,  because  it  was  supposed  that  they  would 
act  solely  with  reference  to  the  dismission  of  the  pastor.  Of  this 
the  council  were  informed.  It  was  therefore  out  of  order  for  them  to 
recommend  a  dissolution  of  the  church,  and  their  advice  ought  to 
have  no  weight. 

8.  Moreover,  even  if  the  act  of  the  majority  were  not  invalid  on 
these  grounds,  it  is  in  this  case,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  at  war  with  a 
limitation  imposed  by  the  special  legislation  of  the  church  itself  on 
the  power  of  the  majority,  and  with  the  mode  prescribed  for  calling 
such  meetings  of  the  church.  Fourteen  rules  and  regulations  had 
been  established  by  the  Howard  Street  Church.  These  relate  to  the 
form  of  government,  mode  of  discipline,  admission  and  dismission  of 
members,*  the  times  of  church  meetings,  the  administration  of  the 
Lord's  supper,  the  observance  of  monthly  concerts  of  prayer,  and 
other  similar  topics.  Of  these  rules  the  eleventh  is  as  follows,  "  No 
alteration  shall  be  made  in  any  of  the  foregoing  rules,  unless  at  a 

*  No.  12. 


37 

regular  meeting  for  business,  it  having  been  proposed  in  writing 
one  v:<  ■  I  prt  viousk/,  and  two  thirds  of  the  members  pn  st  nt  voting  for 

it."  Now  on  this  we  remark  that,  inasmuch  as  the  question  of  the 
utter  dissolution  of  the  church  is  the  most  important  question  that 
can  be  raised,  if  the  church  forbade  altering  even  a  regulation  as  to 
the  time  of  the  Lord's  supper,  or  observing  a  monthly  concert,  except 
by  a  vote  of  two  thirds,  and  after  a  week's  written  notice,  much  more 
did  they  forbid  the  dissolution  of  the  church  by  the  votes  of  a  mere 
majority,  and  without  any  such  written  notice,  or  any  public  notice  at 
all.  Moreover,  by  dissolving  the  church,  the  rules  as  to  the  observ- 
ance of  the  Lord's  supper,  of  church  meetings,  of  monthly  concerts, 
and  of  all  other  services,  and  every  other  rule,  would  be  virtually 
repealed.  If  then  that  cannot  be  done  indirectly  which  the  law  for- 
bids to  be  done  directly,  surely  a  vote  to  dissolve  the  church,  passed 
by  merely  a  small  and  accidental  majority,  and  without  any  previous 
written  notice  at  all,  is  on  every  principle,  both  of  law  and  equity, 
null  and  void.  Yet  the  legal  notice  was  never  given,  nor  did  two 
thirds  at  last  vote  for  the  dissolution. 

This  consideration  is  of  itself  absolutely  decisive.  It  is  abundantly 
sufficient  to  settle  the  case.  If  Ave  had  no  other  ground  of  declaring 
the  disbanding  vote  null  and  void,  this  wrould  be  all  that  Ave  need. 
Similar  principles  are  contained  in  our  civil  constitutions,  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  which  cannot  be  changed  by  mere  majorities. 

But  we  do  not  desire  to  fix  the  mind  on  this  alone.  As  the  general 
question  is  now  up,  we  desire  that  it  may  be  settled  in  accordance 
with  the  great  general  principles  of  our  system,  and  on  grounds  of 
eternal  right.  We  desire  to  reecho  the  truth  that  a  majority  has  no 
right  to  A'iolate  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  ecclesiastical  polity, 
or  to  contravene  the  eternal  laAvs  of  natural  equity.  They  have  no 
right  to  violate  a  covenant  Avith  God,  or  with  man.  It  would  be,  as 
we  have  before  said,  no  violation  of  covenant  if  all  the  members  were 
to  pass  in  an  orderly  Avay  into  felloAvship  with  other  churches  till  none 
remain.  In  this  case  the  church  would  become  extinct,  but  no  cove- 
nant would  be  broken.  Nor  would  this  contravene  our  ecclesiastical 
polity.  The  church  would  not  thus  make  a  member  no  member. 
So  also  two  churches  may  be  united,  if  it  is  so  done  that  no  one  of 
either  is  thrown  out  upon  the  world,  as  a  member  of  no  church. 
But  in  no  case  is  it  lawful  to  disregard  the  great  principle  that  the 
church  cannot  make  a  member  no  member,  except  by  excommunication. 

If  it  should  be  said  that  the  necessity  of  observing  these  principles 
may  involve  great  inconvenience,  and  may  prevent  the  dissolution  of 
churches  when  it  is  desirable,  we  reply,  it  may  cause  great  inconve- 
nience to  an  upright  man  who  has  sworn  to  his  own  hurt,  not  to 
change,  yet  the  pen  of  inspiration  has  given  it  as  one  of  the  decisive 


38 

tests  of  a  citizen  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  that  when  he  has  thus  sworn 
even  to  his  own  hurt,  he  will  not  change.  And  shall  a  whole 
church  swear  to  watch  over  each  other,  till  they  are  safely  in  another 
church,  and  then  a  mere  majority,  to  avoid  inconvenience  or  any  other 
alleged  evils,  change  from  what  they  have  sworn,  declare  that  all 
obligations  to  watch  over  each  other  are  at  an  end,  and  against  remon- 
strances and  protestations,  cast  out  their  brethren  into  the  world  with 
none  to  watch  over  them  ?  The  mutual  covenant  of  the  church  is 
one  of  the  most  solemn  engagements  in  the  universe.  Doubtless 
God  so  regards  it.  Shall  it  be  trifled  with  ?  And  shall  a  church 
weigh  considerations  of  convenience  or  expediency  against  the  solemn 
demands  of  right  and  principle  ? 

Not  only  is  the  principle  of  the  right  of  a  majority  to  govern,  par- 
tially and  incorrectly  apprehended,  as  we  have  shown,  but  it  is 
applied  out  of  its  proper  sphere.  The  right  to  govern  implies  the 
existence  of  a  community  to  be  governed,  and  its  proper  sphere  is 
in  the  government  of  that  community.  But  the  dissolution  of  a 
church  is  not  an  act  of  church  government,  but  of  church  destruc- 
tion. It  is  an  act  that  renders  government  impossible.  It  destroys 
alike  majorities  and  minorities,  and  reduces  what  was  once  a  commu- 
nity to  scattered,  disorganized,  and  ungovernable  fragments. 

Appeal  has  been  made  in  defence  of  this  mode  of  proceeding  to 
the  rights  of  communities  to  revolutionize  governments  by  the  vote  of 
a  majority.  But  the  cases  are  totally  unlike.  No  nation  exists  by 
a  covenant,  like  that  which  gives  its  being  to  a  Congregational 
church.  And  though  a  Congregational  church  is  a  democracy,  yet 
it  acts  under  fixed  divine  principles  ;  the  principles  of  a  covenant 
revealed  in  the  word  of  God,  which  it  has  no  right  to  repudiate. 
Moreover,  the  right  of  revolution  and  of  disbanding  are  not  the  same. 
No  nation  or  people  ever  attempted  so  to  disband  itself  as  to  destroy 
all  political  ties  between  citizen  and  citizen,  and  all  right  of  govern- 
ment, after  appointing  a  committee  to  distribute  its  citizens,  by  letters 
of  commendation  among  other  nations.  No  nation  is  likely  to  claim 
the  right  to  do  it.  They  claim  the  right  indeed  to  change  exist- 
ing forms  of  government,  but  they  remain  organized  under  one  form 
till  they  pass  under  another  ;  and  they  so  pass  as  not  to  invalidate 
existing  titles  to  possessions  and  property.  But  on  these  new  prin- 
ciples, under  the  pretence  of  governing,  a  majority  have  a  right  of 
destroying  both  themselves  and  the  minority.  This  is  not  the  right 
of  government,  but  of  suicide.  It  is  the  right  of  a  majority  not  only 
to  destroy  their  own  rights,  but  also  to  plunder  others  of  theirs. 

After  all,  we  cannot  but  wonder  what  can  be  the  cause  that  so 
much  zeal  is  manifested  in  behalf  of  the  right  of  a  majority  to  disband 
a  church.     If  the  disbanding  of  a  church  were  some  great  good,  some 


39 

glorious  result,  for  which  churches  were  ordained,  we  could  under- 
stand it.  But  what  church,  once  organized,  does  not  naturally  desire 
to  live  and  bless  the  world  till  Christ  shall  come  to  sit  as  judge  of  quick 
and  dead  ?  Why  do  we  find  nowhere  in  the  Bible  any  directions  as 
to  this  mode  of  dissolving  churches  for  which  so  much  zeal  is  mani- 
fested ?  Why  do  we  find  no  such  directions  in  any  earlier  or  later 
works  on  our  church  polity  ?  Is  not  this  a  significant  fact  ?  Does 
it  not  proclaim  the  truth  that  to  live  and  increase  is  the  great  end  of 
a  church,  that  its  death  is  an  event  to  be  deprecated  as  unspeakably 
mournful,  and  that  no  directions  are  given  as  to  the  newly-invented 
mode  of  self-destruction,  because  it  is  not  a  thing  even  to  be  once 
thought  of?  If,  in  the  inevitable  providence  of  God,  a  church  once 
formed  must  cease  to  exist,  let  it  be  either  by  the  act  of  God  taking 
all  its  members  to  heaven,  or  by  so  placing  them  under  the  care  and 
watch  of  other  churches,  that  the  church  shall  not  cease  to  exist  till 
they  are  all  safely  located  in  a  Christian  home. 

It  is  suggested  by  the  Tabernacle  Church,  as  a  reason  for  not 
granting  the  request  of  Brother  Goss,  that  the  Essex  South  Confer- 
ence had  refused  a  seat  to  the  delegates  of  the  Howard  Street 
Church,  on  the  ground  that  it  had  been  dissolved  by  vote  of  a  ma- 
jority of  the  church.  We  have  looked  into  their  proceedings,  and 
find  that  such  was  the  case.  But  this  council  does  not  perceive  that 
weight  should  be  given  to  this  suggestion.  We  cannot  agree  that 
the  orderly  standing  of  a  church,  recognized  as  such  by  neighbor 
churches  in  ecclesiastical  council,  should  be  impeached  in  this  wTay. 
The  objects  of  these  conferences  are  mutual  improvement  and  instruc- 
tion, and  union  in  prayer  and  action,  in  favor  of  weak  churches : 
"  they  expressly  disclaim  all  interference  in  the  rights  of  particular 
churches,  and  they  exercise  no  acts  of  authority  or  discipline."* 
Attempts  have  been  made  to  confer  upon  these  bodies  consociational 
powers,  but  it  has  been  fully  ascertained  that  no  such  change  can  be 
admitted  into  the  ecclesiastical  polity  of  this  state. 

Such  an  attempt  was  made,  and  the  proposals  sent  to  all  the 
churches  in  1705,  which  was  repelled  with  great  power  of  argument, 
and  boldly  and  effectually  rebuked  by  Rev.  John  Wise,  the  admitted 
legal  expounder  of  the  Platform  ;f  and  it  would  seem  that  the  present 
is  a  suitable  time  to  reprint  his  tract  on  that  subject.  We  extract  a 
sentence  or  two  :  "  This  attempt  is  in  defiance  of  our  constitution, 
and  strikes  at  the  root  of  our  government ;  for  our  Platform  denies 
the  classical  state  of  the  churches.  It  sets  at  naught  the  loth  and 
16  th  chapters  for  convening  councils  for  the  service  of  our  churches, 
and  signs  the  condemnation  of  a  form  of  government,  settled  by  rules 
of  equity,  settled  and  established  by  all  the  churches,  and  blessed  by 

*  Up.  Rat.  Disc.  237,  &c  t  "  Churches'  Quarrel  Espoused." 


40 

God  through  a  long  succession  of  years.  I  shall,  for  my  own  part, 
with  the  jealous  Laocoon,  enter  a  caution  against  taking  down  the 
sides  of  the  city,  and  opening  the  walls  of  our  Zion,  and  letting  in 
this  Trojan  Horse."  The  scheme  was  rejected.  Dr.  Cotton  Mather 
says,  "  There  were  some  very  considerable  persons  among  the  min- 
isters, as  well  as  the  brethren,  who  thought  the  liberties  of  particular 
churches  to  be  in  danger  of  being  limited  and  infringed  by  its 
adoption." 

In  1815  another  and  more  strenuous  attempt  was  made  to  establish 
consociationism  in  this  way,  and  it  was  everywhere  opposed  by  the 
laitv,  and  by  many  distinguished  clergymen — most  especially  by 
Rev.  Doctors  Spring  and  Emmons.  Dr.  Spring  published  a  tract  on 
the  occasion,  in  which  he  says,  "  it  is  not  authorized  by  reason  or 
revelation  ;  it  is  not  friendly  to  the  liberty  and  rights  of  conscience, 
and  exceeds  the  plan  of  the  Fathers  by  placing  the  churches  under 
the  care  of  standing  councils."  Dr.  Emmons  contended  that  it 
tended  to  foster  feelings  of  pride,  place,  and  power,  to  introduce  a 
hierarchy,  as  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  to  create  a  jealousy 
of  the  clergy,  and  to  destroy  that  personal  influence  so  necessary 
to  their  usefulness.  The  failure  on  this  occasion  was  so  decisive, 
that  we  have  no  reason  to  expect  another  attempt  of  the  kind. 

The  discipline  of  the  Platform,  which  has  stood  against  these  and 
some  other  minor  attempts  now  for  two  hundred  years,  is  very  plain 
and  clear.  An  assembly  of  Christians  claims  to  be  a  Congregational 
church,  and  sends  its  pastor  and  delegates  to  the  conference.  The 
conference  questions  the  claim.  Here,  by  consent  of  parties,  a 
mutual  council  between  the  conference  and  the  questionable  church 
can  be  called  ;*  but  if  none  such  is  agreed  on,  the  way  to  settle  the 
matter,  by  our  Platform,  is  perfectly  plain. 

One  of  the  churches  acts  as  a  church,  and  deals  with  the  church 
called  in  question,  as  does  a  brother  with  an  oifending  brother.  It 
may  advise  them  to  reorganize.  If  they  do  not  observe  the  advice,  a 
charge  or  complaint  is  made  to  another  church,  and  after  notice  and 
action,  and  refusal,  these  two  churches  call  a  council  to  advise  and 
act  on  the  subject.  If  the  church  complained  against  persists  or  is 
contumacious,  sentence  of  non-communion  is  regularly  pronounced. f 

But  this  conference  postponed  the  Platform,  and,  wholly  disre- 
garding its  provisions,  made  a  summary  disposition  of  the  claim  of 
the  pastors  and  delegates,  and  put  the  sentence  of  non-communion 
immediately  into  effect.     This  is  what  is  called  coming  to  a  result  per 

*  The  council  has  been  informed  that  such  a  council  was  offered  on  the  part  of  the 
church,  but  it  was  not  accepted, 
t  Punch.  116;  Mat.  c.  15;  Math.  Rat.  Dis.  172;  Up.  Rat.  Dis.  206. 


41 

saltum — leaping  over  the  constituted  forms  of  trial,  and  jumping  to 
the  conclusion.     Thi°>   is  not  C<  ionalis  a,  and   it  is  equally 

plain  that  these  conferences  cannot  hear  ami  decide  eoclesiastical 
cases,  or  take  jurisdiction  of  them,  with  any  proper  regard  to  the 
rights  of  the  churches  or  private  Christians,  or  with  any  pro]  er  re- 
gard to  the  principles  on  which  they  are  formed  or  acknowledged 
by  our  order ;  and  if  they  become  organized  as  judicial  bodies,  they 
must  necessarily  be  consociational — bodies  which,  it  is  quite  certain, 
will  not  be  tolerated  in  Massachusetts. 

But  far  worse  than  consociationism,  in  the  opinion  of  the  council, 
is  a  collateral,  summary  jurisdiction,  which  disregards  the  provisions 
of  the  Platform,  and  if  not  final,  nevertheless  disparages  character  in 
an  unauthorized  manner,  and  creates  prejudices  unfavorable  to  fair 
and  impartial  trials  in  a  con  :  ay.     The  council,  therefore, 

cannot  see,  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Conference,  referred  to  in  the 
reply  of  the  Tabernacle  Church  to  the  request  of  Brother  Goss,  any 
good  reason  for  withholding  letters  testimonial  and  of  dismission. 

Whether  a  Congregational  church  shall  be  cherished,  improved, 
aided  by  advice,  and  dealt  with  according  to  the  Platform,  or  become 
extinct  and  annihilated,  are  questions  of  interest  and  magnitude  to 
all  its  members,  as  well  as  to  neighbor  churches,  and  to  all  who  love 
Zion.  When  a  church  are  already  connected  with  a  religious  society 
and  have  a  house  of  worship,  and  are  sufficiently  numerous  and  of 
sufficient  ability  to  sustain  the  worship, — it  would  seem  that  absolute 
necessity  alone  could  induce  the  members  to  abandon  the  worship  and 
throw  up  their  covenant.  In  other  days,  instead  of  compliance,  there 
would  have  been  "  resistance  unto  blood."  The  only  definite  reason 
which  we  have  seen  assigned  for  the  advice  given  to  the  Howard 
Street  Church  to  break  up,  comes  from  members  of  the  Conference, 
(stated  as  that  which  induced  the  council  so  to  advise,)  and  is — "  that 
discipline  in  the  church  had  been  a  long  time  frustrated, — that  there 
had  been  no  discipline  for  a  long  time,  because  it  was  impossible.'' 

To  justify  this  strong  language,  the  church  must  have  been  exceed- 
ingly corrupt ;  and  the  majority  of  the  members  mast  have  chosen 
not  to  exercise  discipline.  But  if  such  were  the  fact,  with  what 
consistency  could  the  council  advise  that  letters  of  commendation 
should  be  given  to  all,  as  without  exception  suitable  persons  to  join 
other  churches  ?  Moreover,  if  there  is  guilt  in  neglecting  discipline, 
it  is  of  course  the  guilt  of  the  majority,  for  so  long  as  they  are  the 
majority,  they  could  maintain  discipline  if  they  would.  Is  it  not  then 
a  singular  proceeding  to  advise  those  who  by  the  supposition  are 
neglecting  known  duty,  to  disband  the  church,  and  thus  put  them- 
selves in  a  position  in  which  no  power  on  earth  has  any  right  to  call 
6 


42 

them  to  account  ?  As  a  church  they  could  be  called  to  account  for 
neglect  of  duty.     But  as  disbanded  individuals  they  cannot  be. 

But  we  cannot  persuade  ourselves  that  Christian  discipline  was 
impossible.  Was  there  no  member  who  had  love  enough  "  to  go  to 
his  brother  in  a  Christian  spirit  and  manner  to  '  tell  him  his  fault  V  " 
And  would  the  majority  refuse  to  take  notice  of  a  complaint  for  a 
palpable  offence,  the  first  and  second  steps  having  been  so  first  taken  ? 
Was  the  trial  made,  and  made  as  it  should  be  made,  with  desire  to 
gain  the  brother,  by  prayer  and  entreaty  and  importunity  ?  Did  the 
majority  in  this  spirit  make  the  attempt  ?  However  this  may  be, 
the  remedy  advised  to  heal  this  alleged  disease  of  the  church  was 
worse  than  the  disease. 

It  appears  to  this  council  that  the  troubles  in  this  church,  concern- 
ing which  we  have  heard  considerable  accounts,  and  read  many 
documents,  were  not  attended  to,  by  the  majority,  or  by  neighbor 
churches,  in  the  spirit  and  manner  prescribed  by  the  law  of  Christ 
and  the  provisions  of  the  Platform ;  and  that  the  expedient  devised  to 
heal  them,  was  such  that  its  failure  need  cause  no  disappointment. 
"  When  men  undertake  to  be  wiser  than  the  law,"  it  is  no  new  thing 
that  they  do  not  succeed.  Any  other  discipline  than  Christian  disci- 
pline, is  a  thousand  times  worse  than  no  discipline.  It  is  known  and 
felt  by  the  offender  that  it  is  wrong  and  he  is  irritated  ;  other 
members  know  it  and  sustain  him,  and  a  faction  is  created  in  the 
church  not  easily  removed  or  suppressed. 

If  a  church  be  corrupt — does  not  maintain  discipline  or  the  ordi- 
nances, our  Platform  provides  a  discipline  in  respect  to  such  corrupt 
church,  which  we  understand  was  not  pursued  in  this  case.  If  this 
church  had  been  in  so  great  fault  and  extremity,  as  is  alleged,  or  in 
any  considerable  wrong,  neighbor  churches  should  have  taken  the 
steps  which  it  directs — steps,  which,  if  taken  in  the  right  spirit,  we 
believe  have  never  failed  of  success. 

However,  as  every  member  of  the  church  was  to  be  recommended 
to  other  evangelical  churches,  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  it  was  so 
corrupt  a  church  as  not  to  be  able  to  administer  true  Christian  dis- 
cipline. But  if  they  neglected  their  duty,  other  churches  should 
have  called  them  to  account.  The  spirit  of  our  system  demanded 
this,  and  not  the  destruction  of  the  church.  Congregationalism  is  con- 
servative. It  holds  on  to  all  that  is  sound,  and  provides  the  means  of 
healing  difficulties  and  disorders  both  of  individuals  and  of  churches, 
and  does  not  crush  or  destroy  a  church  even  when  its  disorders  are 
not  at  once  healed  by  the  means  which  it  provides.  Although  it  may 
put  a  church  out  of  communion,  it  still  hopes  for  its  return.  Such  was 
the  case  in  Salem  itself  in  1733.    At  that  time  the  second  church  in 


43 

Boston  called  the  first  church  in  Salem  to  account,  and  the  sentence 
of  "  non-communion"  by  about  twenty  churches  -was  declared  against 
it.  After  several  years  the  church  in  Salem  penitently  acknowledged 
its  errors,  and  the  sentence  of  non-communion  was  taken  off.  (Win- 
ner's Hist.  Ser.  p.  105.) 

The  political  philosophy  of  Burke,  so  much  admired  and  applauded, 
was  applied  to. the  reformation  of  abuses  ;  that  of  the  French  philoso- 
phers of  his  day  was — instantaneous  demolition,  and  organizing  the 
state  anew.  The  consequences  of  their  work  soon  proved  the  wisdom 
of  Burke,  and  the  folly  of  the  philosophers.  The  council  does  not 
perceive  the  wisdom  of  the  experiment  made  in  this  case.  Demoli- 
tion, disbanding,  dissolving — no  such  remedies  are  provided  in  our 
polity  for  healing  disorders  in  churches.  Such  a  course  impeaches 
the  wisdom  of  our  fathers,  which  provided  other  remedies,  and  dis- 
regards their  practice  and  the  usages  of  the  churches,  and  tends  to 
bring  our  whole  system  into  disrepute. 

The  council  cannot  but  observe  that  the  vote,  by  which  it  was 
attempted  to  dissolve  the  church,  seems  to  have  been  a  very  rash  and 
improvident  act,  besides  being  wholly  ineffectual.  When  matters  of 
great  importance  are  to  be  settled  in  the  church,  care  should  be  taken 
that  all  the  male  members  be  notified,  and  time  for  consideration, 
prayer  and  conference,  personally  and  collectively,  should  be  taken, 
and  at  last  something  more  than  bare  majorities  should  be  sought  and 
obtained.*  In  this  case,  no  written  notice  was  regularly  given  that 
a  meeting  would  be  held  for  the  purpose,  although  it  was  a  question 
of  the  greatest  possible  importance.  Moreover,  although  it  was 
debated  at  some  of  the  usual  meetings  for  business,  it  is  doubtful 
whether  all  of  the  members  knew  that  the  matter  was  before  the 
church  ;  not  above  two  or  three  more  than  half  of  the  male  members 
were  present,  and  the  final  vote  was  but  seventeen  in  favor  of  the 
measure,  and  ten  were  opposed  to  it.  It  is  not  our  usage  to  pass  acts 
of  less  importance  than  this  without  a  greater  unanimity. 

This  fact  and  the  subsequent  results  show  the  wisdom  of  not  for- 
getting or  disregarding  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  chapters  of  the 
Platform. 

After  the  vote  to  dissolve  the  church  was  passed,  at  a  subsequent 
regular  meeting  it  was  agreed  to  convoke  a  council  to  advise  as  to 
whether  or  not  they  continued  to  be  a  church,  and  that  council  con- 
vened and  advised  that  the  Howard  Street  Church  was  not  dissolved. 
These  papers  and  proceedings  are  annexed  and  marked. f 

This  council  is  not  advised  of  any  reasons  or  facts  which  show  that 
the  advice  of  this  council  does  not  stand  good,  nor  why  it  should  not 
be  respected  by  the  Orthodox  community.     It  has  been  objected  that 

•  Punch.  Cong.  170.  t  No.  13. 


44 

the  council  was  ex  parte.  We  do  not  think  it  was  so  in  the  usual 
sense  of  that  term.  A  church,  feeling  the  need  of  advice  and  light, 
may  well  send  for  the  advice  of  neighbor  churches,  without  calling  it 
ex  parte.  Such,  also,  is  the  case  of  a  council  to  advise  as  to  an 
ordination,  or  the  gathering  of  a  new  church.  There  must  be  an 
adverse  party,  not  offered  a  mutual  council,  in  order  so  to  characterize 
an  ecclesiastical  council.  In  this  case,  the  majority  had  probably 
taken  their  letters  and  joined  other  churches,  and  so  could  have  no 
more  interest  in  the  question  than  other  members  of  the  churches 
to  which  they  belonged ;  or,  not  having  used  such  letters,  they  were 
still  members  of  the  Howard  Street  Church,  and  so  must  be  considered 
as  joining  in  the  call,  and  also  as  having  a  right  to  be  heard  before 
the  council  when  convened.  Further,  having  seceded,  and  not  con- 
tinuing to  worship  with  the  church,  they  had  voluntarily  abandoned 
all  right  to  its  property,  whether  it  continued,  ecclesiastically,  to  be 
a  church  or  not. 

It  appeared  also,  that,  having  been  so  advised  that  they  were  a 
church,  they  continued  their  worship  and  called  a  pastor,  and  convoked 
a  council  of  Orthodox  churches,  to  advise,  as  to  his  installation,  and 
that  the  council  assembled  and  advised  that  it  should  take  place,  and 
proceeded  to  install  him  as  pastor  of  the  Howard  Street  Church.* 
Thus  was  he  settled  as  pastor  of  the  Howard  Street  Church,  and 
continues  to  be  such  upon  a  stipulated  salary,  preaching  and  admin- 
istering the  ordinances.  Here  is  certainly  prim  a  fa  cie  evidence  that 
this  church  is  entitled  to  the  fellowship  of  all  our  churches,  and  the 
proceedings  of  the  first  council  are  necessarily  recognized  as  valid, 
ratified  and  confirmed.  What  more  have  any  to  seek  among  our 
churches  to  entitle  them  to  communion,  than  the  proceedings  of  these 
councils  afford  in  favor  of  this  church  ? 

If  any  of  the  churches  were  "  otherwise  minded,"  our  Platform 
prescribes  the  manner  in  which  they  should  proceed  against  heretical 
and  disorderly  churches,  and  all  our  writers  agree  that  it  is  the  only 
way  provided  in  such  cases,  in  the  Congregational  system. f  But  no 
such  steps  have  been  taken  with  this  church,  and  until  they  shall  be, 
this  council  sees  not  why  its  standing  should  be  called  in  question. 

In  view,  then,  of  all  that  has  been  said,  it  is  the  opinion  of  this 
council,  that  the  vote  of  a  majority  cannot  dissolve  a  church  against 
the  consent  of  a  minority ;  and  it  appearing  that  the  Howard  Street 
Church  has  not  been  otherwise  dissolved,  and  that  the  minority  claim 
membership  there,  and  have  acted  and  still  act  as  that  church,  and 
sustain  its  meetings,  the  ordinances,  and  the  ministry,  this  council 
advise  that  that  church  has  not  been  dissolved,  but  still  exists  on  its 
orginal  foundation. 

•  No.  15.  t  Plat.  ch.  15.    Punch.  Cong.  185,  186. 


45 

They  also  advise  that  Mr.  Goss  renew  his  application  to  the 
Tabernacle  Church  for  a  letter  of  dismission,  and  recommendation 
to  the  Howard  Street  Church,  and  if  his  request  be  refused,  that 
he  offer  himself  for  membership  to  the  Howard  Street  Church,  and 
that  the  Howard  Street  Church  be  advised  to  receive  him. 

In  conclusion,  so  far  is  this  council  from  yielding  to  the  reasons 
assigned  by  the  Tabernacle  Church  for  denying  the  request  of 
brother  Goss,  founded  on  the  objectionable  standing  of  the  Howard 
Street  Church,  that  it  considers  this  church,  if  not  primus  inter  pares, 
as  an  ancient  church,  yet,  at  least,  an  equal,  entitled  to  the  sympathies 
and  the  aifections,  the  help  and  the  encouragement  of  all  the  Orthodox 
churches  in  this  community.  And  more  especially  should  they  have 
our  sympathies  and  our  prayers,  if  not  our  thanks,  for  the  stand  which 
they  took  in  favor  of  the  holy  covenant, — not  consenting  to  break,  but 
contrariwise  inflexibly  determined  to  keep  it,  "  to  hold  it  fast  and  not 
let  it  go,"  thus  setting  an  example  of  integrity  and  fidelity  in  the  midst 
of  trials,  "  perils  of  brethren,"  and  formidable  opposition  without  and 
within,  holding  up,  as  a  standard,  the  ancient  covenant  of  our  fathers, 
and  calling  upon  all  the  churches  to  look  at  it  as  the  great  charter  of 
all  the  churches  of  our  order  throughout  the  Christian  world.  Why 
should  an  Orthodox  church  be  crushed  ?  Who  among  us  all  would 
put  our  hand  to  such  a  work  ?  Why  should  this  church  be  crushed  ? 
It  is  admitted  by  all,  that  a  church,  and  the  worship  and  ordinances, 
ought  to  be  sustained  in  Howard  street.  What  possible  interest  or 
valid  reason  can  there  be  that  it  should  not  stand  on  its  ancient 
foundation,  and  preserve  and  show  forth  its  ancient  name  and  its 
ancient  covenant  ?  Do  any  covet  its  name  ?  We  are  not  so  advised. 
Do  any  covet  its  property  ?  We  know  not;  we  suppose  it  is  not  rich 
in  this  world's  goods,  but  hope  it  is  "  rich  in  faith,"  and  if  it  is  a 
trustee  for  its  poor,  we  hope  "  they  will  not  be  sent  empty  away." 

It  seems  to  the  council  that  all  the  churches  must  feel  interested 
to  keep  this  church  in  their  communit}',  and  that  scarcely  a  greater 
cloud  of  grief  could  come  over  them  than  would  come  by  the  ex- 
tinction of  this  light.  The  beloved  disciple  said,  "I  have  no  greater 
joy  than  to  hear  that  my  children  walk  in  the  truth."  We  hope 
that  this  spirit  is  in  all  our  churches,  and  that  as  the  extinction  of 
this  church  would  be  mourned  as  the  annihilation  of  long-cherished 
hopes,  so  its  confirmation  and  its  walk  in  the  order  of  the  gospel  and 
the  communion  of  the  churches,  will  be  hailed  as  the  highest  consum- 
mation of  Christian  joy. 

Reuben  Emerson,  Moderator. 

A.  L.  Stone,  Scribe. 


APPENDIX. 


INDEX  TO  THE  DOCUMENTS. 

No.  1 .  Vote  of  Refusal. 

2.  Preamble  and  Resolutions  of  the  Tabernacle  Church. 

3.  Report  of  the  Committee. 

4.  Letter  of  Mr.  Carlton. 

5.  Letter  of  Mr.  Goss  to  the  Church. 

6.  Certificate  of  Mr.  Humphrey  Cook. 

7.  Request  of  Mr.  Goss  for  a  Mutual  Council. 

8.  Action  of  the  Tabernacle  Church  declining  a  Mutual  Council. 

9.  Action  of  the  Essex  South  Conference  of  Churches. 

10.  Result  of  the  Council  advising  to  the  Dissolution. 

11.  Vote  of  the  Majority  to  dissolve. 

12.  Vote  of  the  Church  upon  the  Pastor's  Request  for  a  Mutual  Council. 

13.  Proceedings  of  the  Church  subsequent  to  the  Vote  to  dissolve. 

14.  Proceedings  of  the  Council  to  which  the  Question  of  Actual  Disso- 

lution was  submitted. 

15.  Churches  composing  the  Installing  Council. 

16.  Letter  of  Dr.  Osgood. 


No.   1. 
VOTE  OF  REFUSAL. 

Salem,  Aug.  25,  1849 
To  Mr.  E.  Gosa. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Tabernacle  Church  last  evening  your  request  was 
presented,  and  after  some  discussion  in  a  kindly  manner,  the  following 
vote  was  passed — 

"  Viz. — that  in  view  of  the  circumstances  in  the  case  the  request  be  not 
granted." 

Humphkey  Cook,  Church   Clerk 


48 


No.  2. 

PREAMBLE    AND    RESOLUTIONS    OF    THE    TABERNACLE 

CHURCH. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Tabernacle  Church,  Friday  evening,  Sept.  28, 
1849,  the  following  preamble  and  resolutions  were  passed,  viz. : 

Whereas  a  member  of  this  Church  has  requested  to  "be  dismissed  and 
recommended  to  the  Howard  Street  Church,"  and  whereas  while  the  Howard 
Street  Church  was  under  the  pastoral  care  of  the  Rev.  Joel  Mann,  a  Mutual 
Council,  called  to  consider  the  difficulties  existing  in  said  Church,  advised 
that  the  Church  should  be  dissolved  ; — 

And  whereas,  agreeably  to  the  advice  of  the  said  Mutual  Council,  and 
after  mature  consideration  of  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  a  vote  was 
passed  by  a  majority  of  the  Church,  to  dissolve  the  Church,  provision  being 
made,  however,  for  a  regular' transfer  of  membership  to  sister  churches  ; — and 

Whereas,  this  Church  has  recognized  the  validity  of  the  aforesaid  vote, 
by  receiving  members,  agreeably  to  the  aforesaid  provisions  for  a  transfer 
of  membership  to  sister  churches  ; — and  whereas,  notwithstanding  the  result 
of  an  Ex-parte  Council,  called  by  the  minority  of  the  said  Howard  Street 
Church, — the  Essex  South  Conference  of  Churches  decided  that  the  dele- 
gates of  the  said  minority  were  not  entitled  to  a  seat  in  the  Conference,  in 
virtue  of  their  claim  to  be  considered  the  delegates  of  the  Howard  Street 
Church  as  known  and  recognized,  previous  to  the  vote,  by  which  the  said 
Church  was  declared  to  be  dissolved  ;  — 

Therefore,  Resolved,  1st,  That  as  at  present  informed  in  relation  to  the 
whole  subject,  we  are  not  aware  of  any  sufficient  reason  to  repudiate  and 
disregard  the  decision  of  the  Essex  South  Conference,  in  October  last,  by 
which  the  action  of  the  aforesaid  majority  of  the  Howard  Street  Church  was 
indirectly,  yet  distinctly  and  absolutely  sustained  — 

Resolved,  2d,  That  in  the  judgment  of  this  Church,  it  is  not  consistent 
with  the  principles  of  order  and  fellowship  in  our  Congregational  churches, 
nor  promotive  of  the  best  interests  of  the  community — to  recognize  the 
claims  of  the  aforesaid  minority  of  the  Howard  Street  Church,  to  be  the  origi- 
nal and  undissolved  organization  as  known  and  acknowledged  previous  to 
May  4th,  1847,  when  the  vote  was  passed  which  declared  the  Howard 
Street  Church  to  be  dissolved,  and  no  longer  to  exist. 

Resolved,  3d,  That  until  prepared  to  rescind  the  foregoing  resolutions, 
and  reconsider  the  facts,  which  are  presented  in  the  foregoing  preamble  of 
the  said  resolutions, — it  will  not  be  consistent  or  proper  for  this  Church  to 
grant  letters  of  dismission  and  recommendation  to  membership  with  those 
who  claim  to  be  the  Howard  Street  Church  in  this  city — without  any  regard 
to  the  proceedings  by  which  we  have  considered  the  said  Church  regularly 
and  truly  dissolved. 

Attest,  Humphrey  Cook,  Church  Clerk. 

Sept.   28th,    1849. — At   the  meeting  of  the  Tabernacle   Church   this 


49 


evening,  the  Committee  on  Br.  Goss's  request   reported  and  the  Church 
accepted  it ;    and  adhered  to  their  former  vote — 

Viz.,  that  under  cm  ting  circumstance?  Br.    Gross's  request  cannot  be 
granted. 

Humphrey  Cook,   Church  Clerk. 


No.  3. 
REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE 

To  the  Tabernacle  Cm;  ch. 

The  Committee  appointed  to  explain  to  Br.  Ezekiel  Oops  the  reasons  why 
the  Church  could  not  grant  his  request  to  be  dismissed  and  recommended  to 
the  Howard  Street  Church,  so  called,  have  attended  to  the  service 

Agreeably  to  what  was  stated  at  the  time  his  request  was  acted  upon,  the 
Committee  informed  Br.  Goss  that  it  would  not  be  at  all  consistent  for  this 
Church  to  grant  his  request,  because  the  standing  of  those  with  whom  he 
desired  to  be  connected  is  considered  by  this  Church  to  be  irregular. 

The  Committee  also  stated  to  Br.  Goss  that  his  own  walk  had  been  irreg- 
ular ;  they  reminded  him  that  he  had  not  fulfilled  his  covenant  engagements, 
inasmuch  as  he  not  only  absented  himself  from  the  meeting  of  the  Church 
which  he  used  to  attend  very  constantly,  but  has  not  for  a  considerable  time 
worshipped  with  the  Church  or  been  present  at  their  communion  season.  This 
absence  appeared  to  be  in  consequence  of  some  offence  which  he  had  taken, 
or  some  alienation  of  feeliog  which  ought  not  to  exist,  and  therefore  it  would 
not  be  proper  to  grant  his  request,  even  if  there  was  no  objection  in  regard 
to  the  standing  of  those  to  whom  he  has  requested  to  be  dismissed  and 
recommended. 

Ira  A.  Brewster,     \  CommiUee 

JONA.    PERLEY,  ) 

Salem,  Sept.  2M,  1849. 


No.  4. 

LETTER  OF  MR.  CARLTON. 

Salem,  Jan.  8,  1850. 
Rev.  and  Dear  Sir : — On  the  morning  after  the  session  of  the  Council  in 
the  case  of  Mr.  Goss,  you  remarked  to  me,  that  the  action  of  the  Council  had 
been  considerably  embarrassed  by  the  intimation  that  Mr.  Goss  was  still 
under  the  discipline  of  the  Tabernacle  Church  ;  ».  e.,  that  a  process  of  disci- 
pline had  been  commenced  with  him,  and  was  still  unfinished,  or,  in  other 
words,  had  not  been  finally  adjudicated  by  the  Church  ;  and  you  asked  me 
if  this  intimation  was  true,  to  which  I  replied,  emphatically,  that  it  was  not 
true. 

1 


50 

To  prove  to  you  now,  sir,  that  the  suggestion  was  not  true,  I  submit  to 
you,  agreeably  to  your  request,  the  following  brief  statement  of  facts. 

1.  When  Br.  Goss  first  presented  his  request  to  the  Church  for  a  letter  of 
dismission  and  recommendation  to  the  Howard  Street  Church,  no  intimation 
whatever  was  made  by  any  one,  that  any  brother  had  commenced  a  course 
of  discipline  with  him.  And,  besides,  the  pastor  distinctly  stated  to  the 
Church,  that  he  had  intended,  that  very  week,  to  request  some  one  of 
the  brethren  to  converse  with  Br.  Gross  in  relation  to  his  long  absence  from 
the  meetings  and  communion  of  the  Church  ;  but  that  the  request  of  Br. 
Gross  had  taken  him  by  surprise. 

2.  After  the  Church  had  voted,  that,  "  under  the  circumstances,"  the 
request  of  Br.  Goss  could  not  be  granted,  he  sent  in  a  communication, 
desiring  to  know  what  "  the  circumstances"  were.  The  Church  raised  a 
committee,  and  directed  them  to  wait  on  Br.  Goss,  and  give  him  an  expla- 
nation. That  Committee  subsequently  reported  to  the  Church,  in  writing, 
that  they  had  attended  to  the  duty  assigned  them,  and  had  told  Br.  Goss 
that  the  reasons  for  refusing  his  request  were  two  ;  viz.,  that  the  Howard 
Street  Church,  so  called,  was  not  considered  by  them  as  a  regular  church, 
and  that  his  walk  had  been  disorderly.  Br.  Goss  then  appeared  before  the 
Church,  and  asked  permission  to  reply  to  the  two  reasons  assigned  by  the 
Committee  ;  but  he  was  told  by  the  pastor  that  he  could  not  be  allowed  to 
reply  at  all ;  not,  certainly  to  the  first  reason,  because  the  Church  had 
taken  final  action  on  the  subject  of  the  Howard  Street  Church,  and  there- 
fore that  subject  could  not  be  re-opened ;  and  not  even  to  the  second  reason, 
because  the  Church  had  not  only  brought  no  such  charge,  but  had  made  no 
charge  whatever  against  him.  And  when  it  was  suggested  that  the  action 
of  a  committee  of  the  Church  was,  in  reality,  the  action  of  the  Church,  the 
pastor  replied,  that  the  report  of  the  Committee  had  only  been  accepted,  but 
not  adopted,  and  that,  therefore,  their  action  was  but  the  action  of  individuals, 
and  not  the  action  of  the  Church.  And  Br.  Goss  was  told  by  the  pastor 
and  certain  members  of  the  Church,  over  and  over  again,  that  the  Church 
had  neither  charges  nor  charge  against  him ;  and  accordingly  he  was  not 
allowed  to  make  any  reply. 

3.  After  the  Church  had  refused  to  hear  Br.  Goss,  and  he  had  retired, 
it  was  suggested  by  some  one,  that  his  long  absence  from  the  communion  of 
the  Church  was  wrong,  and  was  a  fit  subject  for  church  discipline.  There- 
upon I  immediately  rose  in  my  place,  and  stated  that  I  hoped  a  course  of 
discipline  would  now  be  commenced  with  Br.  Goss  forthwith.  The  pastor 
stated  in  reply,  that  there  were  cases,  which,  for  certain  reasons,'  ought  to 
be  delayed  ;  and  intimated  that  this  was  a  case  which  ought  to  be  deferred 
to  a  future  time. 

From  these  facts,  you  can  judge  as  well  as  I,  whether  the  intimation, 
which  you  said  was  thrown  out  during  the  session  of  the  Council,  was  true 
or  not. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

0.  Caklton. 
Rev.  E.  Beechee,  D.  D. 


51 

No.  5. 

LETTER  OP  MR.  GOSS  TO  THE  CHURCH. 

Salem,  Sept.  14th,  1849. 
To  the  Tabernacle  Church. 

Dear  Brethren  : — Deacon  Perlcy  and  Brewster  called  on  me  last  evening 
as  a  Committee  of  the  Church  to  explain  the  circumstances  in  the  ease  why 
you  voted  not  to  grant  my  request  for  a  dismission  and  letter  to  the  Howard 
Street  Church. 

The  first  reason  they  gave  was,  That  the  course  the  Church  had  taken  in 
regard  to  the  Howard  Street  Church,  in  receiving  her  members  was,  that  the 
Church  is  broken  up,  and  therefore  to  be  consistent  with  that  course  could 
not  grant  my  request.  The  second  was,  That  the  Church  apprehended 
that  there  might  be  ill  feelings  towards  some  members  of  the  Church. 
Whether  that  apprehension  was  well  grounded  they  knew  not,  except  my 
long  absence  from  the  communion. 

In  reply  to  the  first,  I  will  inform  the  Church,  that  the  brethren  and 
sisters  that  remain  at  the  Howard  Street  Church  sought  counsel  and  advice 
of  sister  churches  (with  which  you  are  in  fellowship),  in  their  trials  and 
difficulties,  and  have  acted  in  accordance  with  that  advice,  and  since  then 
they  have  settled  a  pastor  by  Council  of  sister  churches,  to  which  you  have 
and  are  accustomed  to  dismiss  and  receive  members,  and  to  which  you  also 
were  invited.  You  cannot  therefore  expect  me  to  surrender  my  rights  and 
privileges  to  such  a  plea.     I  therefore  renew  my  request. 

To  the  second,  I  can  only  say  I  know  of  no  unkind  feeling  to  any  member 
on  my  part  ;  if  there  is,  or  has  been,  I  wish  their  forgiveness  as  they  would 
be  forgiven.  As  for  my  long  absence  from  the  communion,  my  intention 
has  long  been  known  by  a  large  part  of  the  Church,  and  to  the  pastor  for 
more  than  a  year,  and  I  have  communed  with  the  Howard  Street  Church 
regularly  ever  since. 

From  your  brother  in  Christ, 

Ezekiel  Goss. 


No.  6. 
CERTIFICATE  OF  MR.  HUMPHREY  COOK. 

I  hereby  certify  that  as  clerk  of  Tabernacle  Church  I  have  furnished  Br. 
Ezekiel  Goss  with  copies  of  the  following  documents,  viz.  : 

1.  The  vote  of  the  Church,  Aug.  25,  1849. 

2.  The  report  of  the  Committee  which  was  appointed  to  state  to  him  the 
reasons  why  his  request  was  not  granted. 

3.  The  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Church  respecting  Howard  Street 
Church,  and  the  second  vote  declining  to  dismiss  him,  passed  Sept.  28, 
1849. 


52 

4.  Tbe  reasons  put  on  record  for  declining  his  request  for  a  Mutual 
Council,  and  that  these  are  all  the  record  of  proceedings  in  his  case  up  to 
the  20th  of  Nov,  1849. 

I  also  certify  that  on  the  26th  day  of  October,  Mr.  Goss  desired  an 
opportunity  in  Church  meeting  to  make  some  communication  to  the  Church, 
touching  their  objections  to  granting  him  a  dismission,  which  was  refused  by 
the  pastor  and  Church,  on  the  ground  that  so  far  as  Howard  Street  Church 
was  concerned,  the  action  of  the  Church  could  not  be  changed,  and,  second, 
that  the  Church  had  no  charges  against  him  that  demanded  any  communica- 
tion from  him.    It  was  repeatedly  said  to  him,  we  have  nothing  against  you. 

Humphrey  Cook. 
Salem,  Dec   26,  1849. 


No.  7. 
REQUEST  OF  MR.  GOSS  FOR  A  MUTUAL  COUNCIL. 

To  the  Tabernacle  Church. 

Dear  Brethren  : — I  have  repeatedly  requested  of  you  a  dismission  and 
recommendation  to  the  Howard  Street  Church  in  this  city.  My  request  has 
as  often  been  refused.  I  do  not  now  wish  to  present  further  reasons  for  my 
request,  for  I  am  assured  by  your  pastor  that  there  are  no  charges  against 
me,  and  still  my  request  cannot  be  granted.  I  therefore  respectfully  request 
that  you  will  unite  with  me  in  calling  a  mutual  council  according  to  the 
usage  of  the  Congregational  Church,  to  consider  and  advise  with  reference 
to  the  following  questions,  viz.: 

1st.  Was  I  in  good  and  regular  standing  as  a  member  of  the  Tabernacle 
Church  on  the  25th  of  August,  1849  ? 

2d.  Has  any  thing  taken  place  in  reference  to  the  question  of  my  request 
for  a  dismission  since  that  time  that  renders  it  improper  that  I  should  have  a 
letter  in  the  usual  form  ? 

3d.  Is  the  standing  of  the  Howard  Street  Church  such  that  the  Tabernacle 
Church  ought  not  to  recommend  members  to  its  communion  ? 

I  would  propose  that  the  Council  should  be  composed  of  churches  whose 
ministers  have  never  been  called  to  act  in  the  case  of  the  Howard  Street 
Church  during  its  last  difficulties. 

I  will  be  ready  to  meet  your  Committee  at  any  suitable  time  on  a  few 
hours'  notice,  for  the  purpose  of  selecting  the  Council  and  preparing  the 
letters  missive. 

From  your  brother  in  Christ, 

Ezekiel  Goss. 
■Salem,  Oct.  30th,  1849. 

N.  B.  On  account  of  business  arrangements  I  would  earnestly  request 
that  the  Church  would  act  on  it  on  Friday  evening  next  at  the  close  of  their 
preparatory  lecture. 


53 


No.  8. 

ACTION   OF   THE  TABERNACLE   CHURCH   DECLINING  A 
MUTUAL  COUNCIL. 

Salem,  Nov.  9,  1849. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Tabernacle  Church,  Friday  evening,  the  request  of 
Br.  Goss  for  a  mutual  council  was  acted  upon,  and  the  following  vote  was 
passed,  viz.: 

"Whereas  our  Br.  Ezekiel  Goss,  has  requested  this  church  to  unite  with 
him  in  callino;  a  mutual  council  "  to  consider  and  advise  with  reference  to 
the  following  questions,  viz.  : — 

1st.  Was  I  in  good  and  regular  standing  as  a  member  of  the  Tabernacle 
Church,  on  the  25th  of  August,  1849? 

2d.  Has  any  thing  taken  place  in  reference  to  the  question  of  my  request 
for  a  dismission,  since  that  time,  that  renders  it  improper  that  I  should  have 
a  letter  in  the  usual  form  ? 

3d.  Is  the  standing  of  Howard  Street  Church  such,  that  the  Tabernacle 
Church  ought  not  to  recommend  members  to  its  communion  ? — 

Therefore,  voted,  that  the  following  answer  be  given  to  his  request,  viz. : 

In  regard  to  the  first  of  the  questions,  which  it  is  proposed  to  submit  to  a 
mutual  council,  the  Church  has  not  taken  action  in  a  judicial  manner,  and 
the  hope  has  been  cherished,  and  still  is,  that  both  the  expediency  and  the 
necessity  of  such  action  may  be  entirely  precluded.  If,  however,  the  long 
absence  of  Br.  Goss  from  the  communion  and  meetings  of  the  church  previous 
to  Aug.  25  should  ever  be  brought  before  the  Church,  in  the  regular  process 
of  discipline,  the  Church  has  no  reason  to  anticipate  any  such  difficulties  in 
the  case,  as  would  give  occasion,  in  the  smallest  degree,  for  the  advice  of  a 
council. 

Upon  the  second  question,  which  it  is  proposed  to  submit  to  a  mutual 
council, — the  Church  has  taken  no  action  whatever,  neither  has  any  been 
contemplated,  so  far  as  is  known  to  the  Church.  As,  therefore,  the  subject 
matter  of  neither  of  these  questions,  has  been  adjudicated  in  the  Church, 
nor  even  introduced  into  the  Church  for  the  purpose  of  adjudication,  there 
can  be  no  propriety  in  calling  a  mutual  council  in  such  circumstances  "  to 
consider  and  advise  with  reference  "  to  them. 

In  relation  to  the  third  question,  it  is  true  that  the  Church  has  taken 
action,  and  such  action  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  language  used  in  the 
letter  of  Br.  Goss.  The  action  of  the  Church  however  by  which  the  disso- 
lution of  the  Howard  Street  Church,  May  4th,  1847,  has  been  recognized, 
was  taken  with  much  carefulness  and  under  a  constraining  sense  of  duty, 
to  vindicate  and  support  the  fundamental  principles  and  the  accredited 
usages  of  the  Congregational  order, — as  affecting  the  independence  of  each 
Church  respectively,  and  the  inalienable  rights  of  majorities  in  each  church. 
Until  tlio^e  who  now  profess  to  be  the  original  Howard  Street  Church,  as 
if  no  dissolution  had  ever  been  voted,  shall  take  a  different  ground  upon 
which  they  will  urge  their  claims  to  recognition  and  fellowship  as  a  sister 


54 

church, — the  Tabernacle  Church  cannot,  with  any  consistency  or  propriety, 
acknowledge  their  title  to  such  recognition  and  fellowship ;  so  far  as  known 
to  the  Tabernacle  Church,  there  is  no  existing  occasion  to  submit  its  doings,  in 
respect  to  this  subject,  to  the  revision  of  a  Council ;  neither  is  there  any  such 
occasion  apprehended,  in  the  changes  of  the  future.  While,  therefore,  the 
Church  has  none  other  than  the  kindest  feelings  towards  Br.  Goss,  and  there 
is  not  the  least  desire  to  prevent  a  removal  of  his  relation  of  membership  to 
some  sister  church,  whenever  it  can  be  accomplished  in  an  orderly  and 
satisfactory  manner,  the  request  of  our  Br.  Goss,  that  the  Church  should 
unite  with  him  in  calling  a  mutual  council,  must  be  declined. 

Humphrey  Cook,    Church  Clerk. 


No.   9. 


ACTION   OF  THE  ESSEX  SOUTH   CONFERENCE   OF 
CHURCHES. 

In  October  of  the  year  18-17,  the  Essex  South  Conference  of  Churches 
met  at  Swampseot.  The  Howard' Street  Church  sent  Brethren  B.  A.  Gray 
and  D.  Brainard  Brooks,  as  delegates,  and  at  the  call  of  the  names  of  mem- 
bers they  handed  us  their  names  as  delegates.  Objections  were  made  to 
their  having  a  seat  by  R.  P.  Waters,  Esq.,  on  the  ground  that  there  was 
no  church  there.  Their  claim  was  referred  to  a  committee  of  five  under  the 
following  vote  : 

"Voted,  that  a  committee  of  five  be  appointed  to  consider  the  question 
pertaining  to  the  relations  to  this  conference  of  the  brethren  claiming  to  be 
the  Howard  Street  Church,  Salem.  Messrs.  Lawrence,  Cooke,  Field, 
Tolman,  and  Trask,  of  Beverly,  were  appointed  the  Committee." 

Danvers,  October  8,  1848. 

Voted  to  hear  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  questions  pertaining  to 
the  relations  of  the  brethren  claiming  to  be  the  Howard  Street  Church,  to 
this  conference. 

REPORT. 

Whereas,  It  is  an  admitted  principle  that  in  the  action  of  Congregational 
churches  laid  down  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  the  records  and  symbols 
of  our  churches,  that  majorities  govern  :  and  whereas  we  find  no  accredited 
precedents  in  the  usages  of  the  church  to  the  contrary,  and  do  not  feel 
willing  to  institute  one — Therefore,  Resolved,  That  tho  claim  of  our 
brethren  to  be  the  late  Howard  Street  Church,  ought  not  to  be  allowed  and 
it  is  not  allowed. 

After  a  protracted  discussion  (from  9  1-2  A.  M.,  to  4  P.  M.)  of  the 
subject,  the  Report  of  the  Committee  was  adopted. 

A  true  copy  of  the  records,  made  by  M  H  Wilder. 


55 


No.  10. 
RESULT  OF  COUNCIL  ADVISING  TO  THE  DISSOLUTION. 

Salem,  April  14,  1847. 

It  appears  that  the  pastor's  request  for  a  dismission  arises  from  embarrass- 
ments which  have  rendered,  in  a  great  degree,  abortive  his  earnest  and 
self-denying  efforts  for  a  course  of  years,  and  which  embarrassments  have 
now  come  to  a  crisis,  so  that  we  can  do  no  less  than  accede  to  his  request, 
and  we  hereby  declare  his  pastoral  relation  dissolved. 

We  tenderly  sympathize  with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Mann,  in  his  afflictions  and 
disappointed  hopes,  and  most  cordially  recommend  him  to  the  churches  of 
Christ,  as  sound  in  doctrine,  earnest,  able  and  faithfid  in  preaching ;  kind, 
amiable  and  acceptable  in  the  relations  of  social  life,  and  heartily  devoted 
to  the  true  ends  of  the  mi?iistry.  And  we  deem  it  due  to  him  to  say,  that 
his  failure  of  the  desired  success  in  extricating  this  church  from  its  embar- 
rassments should  not  be  used  in  disparagement  of  his  ministerial  character 
in  any  respect. 

And  since  the  embarrassments  which  have  so  far  frustrated  his  ministry 
still  exist,  without  prospect  of  change,  while  the  Church  retains  its  present 
organization,  we  would  suggest  the  inquiry  whether  the  best  good- of  all 
concerned  would  not  be  consulted  by  a  dissolution  of  that  organization,  and 
the  members  connect  themselves  with  other  churches  in  this  city.  A  step 
so  uncommon,  we  think,  is  made  expedient  by  reasons  as  peculiar.  It  is 
not  that  we  think  that  there  is  not  ability  and  piety  enough  to  sustain  the 
enterprise  in  favoring  circumstances.  There  are  materials  of  great  value  in 
this  Church,  but  they  stand  in  such  relations  as  to  hinder  their  efforts  for 
good.  Nor  is  it  true  that  our  denomination  in  this  city  have  churches 
enough  without  this.  The  prospect  rather  appears  to  be,  that  if  this  is 
dissolved,  a  new  one  will  soon  take  its  place.  We  would,  therefore,  advise 
that  the  present  organization,  if  it  sees  fit,  vote  a  dissolution,  and  if  the 
proprietors  of  the  meeting-house  see  fit,  to  close  it  awhile  and  wait  for  the 
movements  of  Providence,  we  feel  persuaded  that  the  time  will  soon  come 
when  the  way  will  be  made  to  open  it  under  better  auspices.  A  new 
organization  formed  for  the  purpose,  would  of  course  stand  clear  of  most  of 
the  embarrassments  of  the  present. 

We  deem  it  to  be  our  duty  in  concluding  this  Result,  to  call  upon  some 
of  the  individuals  of  the  Church  to  reconsider  the  manner  in  which  they 
have  treated  their  pastor,  during  the  existence  of  the  difficulties  which  have 
given  occasion  to  the  calling  of  this  Council.  Saying  nothing  of  those  who 
have  been  in  fault  in  other  matters,  there  has  been  a  disposition  on  the  part 
of  these,  to  push  some  favorite  points  to  extremes ; — a  want  of  charitable 
construction  of  the  pastor's  motives  and  conduct  in  relation  to  points  on 
which  there  existed  a  difference  of  opinion  between  him  and  them  ;  and  a 
deficiency  of  that  kindness  and  courtesy  which  he  had  a  right  to  claim  as  a 
Christian  minister,  and  particularly  as  their  pastor. 

The  Council  hope  that  they  will  see  their  error,  and  that  in  whatever 
future   ecclesiastical  connection  they  may  be  placed,  they  will  seek  to  be 


56 

possessed  of  a  spirit  of  wisdom,  and  of  a  sound  mind,  and  will  remember, 
that  charity,  kindness  and  forbearance  are  as  important  parts  of  Christian 
character,  as  zeal  in  suppressing  the  errors  and  vices  of  society. 

Parsons  Cooke,  Moderator. 
E.  A.  Lawrence,  Scribe. 


No.  11. 
VOTE  OF  THE  MAJORITY  TO  DISSOLVE. 

Tuesday  evening,  May  4,  1847,  Church  met  by  adjournment. 

Voted  to  choose  R.  P.  Waters,  Moderator,  pro  tem. 

A.  T.  Brooks  withdrew  his  motion  for  the  previous  question. 

On  the  motion  of  indefinite  postponement,  Voted  in  the  negative. 

A.  T.  Brooks  offered  the  following  amendment  to  the  main  question, 
which  was  accepted  by  the  mover,  as  follows,  after  adopt,  to  read  thus  : 

Voted  to  adopt  the  remainder  of  the  Result  of  Council  and  by  and  with  their 
advice,  this  organization  is  hereby  dissolved — and  that  Deacons  Smith,  Foster 
and  Driver,  be  a  committee  to  grant  letters  of  dismissions  and  recommenda- 
tions under  date  of  May  4,  1847,  to  all  the  remaining  members  of  the 
Church,  to  any  Orthodox  Congregational  Church  they  may  direct. 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  called  for,  the  result  was  as  follows : 

Yeas. — A.  T.  Brooks,  Thomas  Brooks,  Amos  Henfield,  Aaron  Smith, 
Jr.,  John  Kimball,  Wm.  R.  Warden,  Joseph  G.  Porter,  John  H.  Grush, 
Alexander  McClay,  Moses  T.  Upton,  George  B.  Stedman,  Gideon  B. 
Monarch,  Charles  Goodrich,  Eibridge  Guilford,  E.  W.  Fabins,  Isaac  P. 
Foster,  R.  P.  Waters— 17. 

Nays. — Daniel  Millet,  Joseph  Hale,  S.  Driver,  Benj.  A.  Gray,  Thacldeus 
Osgood,  D.  B.  Brooks,  E.  B.  Osgood,  Benjamin  Trask,  Eben.  Cleaveland, 
Wm.  P.  Fuller.— 10. 


No.  12. 


VOTE  OF  THE  CHURCH  UPON  THE  PASTOR'S  REQUEST 
FOR  A  MUTUAL  COUNCIL. 

Tuesday  evening,  April  6,  1847. — A  communication  from  the  pastor 
requesting  the  Church  to  unite  with  him  in  calling  a  mutual  council  to 
dissolve  the  pastoral  relation  being  read,  voted  unanimously  to  comply  with 
his  request. 

Voted  to  invite  the  Crombie  Street  Church,  Salem,  churches  in  Marble- 
head,  Lynn,  South  and  North  Danvers,  and  Washington  Street  Church, 
Beverly,  to  meet  in  council  at  the  vestry,  on  Wednesday,  April  14th,  at 
9  o'clock,  A.M. 


67 

Voted  to  choose  George  H.  Smith  and  Isaac  P.  Foster  the  committee  of 
the  Church  to  draft,  sign  and  send  the  letters  missive,  and  also  to  appear  before 
the  Council  in  behalf  of  the  Church. 


No.    13. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  CHURCH  SUBSEQUENT  TO  THE 
VOTE  TO  DISSOLVE. 

A  meeting  for  business  was  held  in  the  vestry  on  Tuesday  evening,  May 
11th,  1817.  The  meeting  was  organized  by  the  choice  of  Daniel  Millet, 
Moderator,  and  D.  B.  Brooks,  Clerk. 

Voted,  That  we  choose  a  clerk  for  the  Church,  our  former  clerk  having 
taken  a  letter  of  dismission  to  another  church. 

Voted,  that  E.  B.  Osgood  be  Clerk. 

Voted,  to  choose  a  Committee  to  supply  the  pulpit. 

Voted,  that  Joseph  Hale,  Benj.  A.  Gray  and  John  P.  Jewett  bo  this 
Committee. 

Voted  to  choose  a  Treasurer  for  the  Church,  the  former  one  having  taken 
his  dismission. 

Voted,  that  Dea.  Stephen  Driver,  Jr.,  be  Treasurer. 

Voted,  that  a  Committee  be  appointed  to  wait  upon  our  former  Treasurer 
to  request  that  the  communion  service  be  put  into  the  hands  of  our  present 
Treasurer. 

Voted,  that  Dea.  Driver  and  Joseph  Hale  be  this  Committee. 

Voted,  that  the  Clerk  be  requested  to  call  upon  Dea.  Foster,  our  former 
Clerk,  and  request  the  records  belonging  to  this  Church. 

Voted,  that  an  Ecclesiastical  Council  be  called  to  examine  the  doings  of 
the  last  church  meeting. 

Voted,  that  the  Council  be  requested  to  meet  on  the  26th  day  of  May 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Church  held  May  17,  the  vote  calling  the  Council  to 
meet  on  the  26th  was  reconsidered,  and  it  was  voted  to  fix  the  time  to  the 
28th  of  May. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  letter  missive  : 

Rev.  and  Beloved  :  —  Whereas  for  a  year  past  difficulties  have  existed  in 
this  Church  which  have  resulted  in  the  calling  of  two  Ecclesiastical  Councils 
the  second  of  which  dissolves  the  relation  of  the  pastoral  connection  with 
the  Church  and  Society,  and  also  recommended  that  the  Church  take  into 
consideration  the  expediency  of  disbanding  its  organization, — The  result 
of  the  Council  having  been  read  to  the  Church,  the  former  part,  which 
dismissed  the  pastor,  was  unanimously  accepted  ;  a  motion  was  then  made 
to  adopt  the  closing  part  of  the  result,  and  by  its  adoption  to  consider  the 
Church  disbanded.  This  was  strenuously  opposed  by  a  large  minority  of 
the  members  present,  and  various  arguments  were  presented  for  the  consid- 
eration of  the  Church,  tending  to  prove  the  impossibility  of  thus  disbanding 
8 


58 

a  church  of  Christ  without  a  unanimous  vote.  But  notwithstanding  all  the 
protestations  of  the  minority,  the  vote  was  passed,  seventeen  voting  in  the 
affirmative,  and  ten  in  the  negative,  three  of  those  voting  in  the  affirmative  at 
previous  meetings  of  the  Church,  having  been  dismissed  to  sister  churches, 
yet  they  still  persisted  in  voting  on  the  question,  though  protests  were 
made  against  it.  Several  members,  five  at  least,  would  have  been  present 
to  have  voted  with  the  minority,  had  not  Providence  prevented.  Under 
these  circumstances  the  vote  was  passed  and  a  committee  of  three  persons  was 
chosen  (two  of  whom  had  been  dismissed  at  their  request  from  the  Church) 
to  give  letters  of  dismission  and  recommendation  to  all  the  members — 
whether  they  asked  for  them  or  not.  This  is  a  brief  statement  of  facts  in  the 
case.  We  are  deeply  grieved,  and  placed  by  this  vote  of  the  Church  in 
peculiar  circumstances  of  trial  and  affliction,  and  need  judicious  Christian 
advice  in  the  matter,  and  therefore  ask  you  to  meet  in  Council,  by  your 
pastor  and  delegate,  at  the  vestry  of  the  Howard  Street  Church,  on  Friday, 
May  28th,  at  10  o'clock,  A.  M.,  and  review  these  proceedings,  and  adjudi- 
cate thereon. 

Note. — On  the  day  appointed  for  the  meeting  of  the  Council,  Friday,  May  2Sth,  it 
was  decided  that  as  the  number  present  was  not  sufficient  for  a  quorum,  the  time  of 
meeting  be  postponed  to  Tuesday,  June  15th. 

At  the  above  meeting  Dr.  Perry  was  Moderator. 


No.  14. 

PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  TO  WHICH  THE  QUESTION 
OF  ACTUAL  DISSOLUTION  WAS  SUBMITTED. 

A  copy  of  the  Result  of  the  Council,  Salem,  June  15th,  1847. 

An  Ecclesiastical  Council  convened  at  the  vestry  of  the  Howard  Street 
Church,  pursuant  to  letters  missive  from  the  Howard  Street  Church,  for 
t1  e  purpose  of  giving  advice  in  regard  to  certain  proceedings  purporting  to 
be  a  dissolution  of  said  Church  against  the  wishes  of  a  minority. 

The  Rev.  Gardiner  B.  Perry  was  chosen  Moderator,  and  Joshua  Leavitt, 
Scribe. 

The  churches  present  were  as  follows  : 

Salem  Church,  Boston. — Br.  David  Pulsifer,  Delegate. 

East  Bradford  Church. — Rev.  G.  B.  Perry,  D.  D.,  Pastor;  Dea.  Ira 
Hopkinson,  Delegate. 

Second  Evangelical  Congregational  Church,  Cambridgeport. — Rev. 
Joseph  C.  Lovejoy,  Pastor;  Rev.  Joshua  Leavitt,  Delegate. 

Hopkinton  Church. — Dea.  Samuel  Nurse,  Delegate. 

East  Abington  Church. — Rev.  H.  D.  Walker,  Pastor;  Dea.  Elijah 
Shaw,  Delegate. 

Free  Church,  Andover. — Rev.  E.  C.  Winchester,  Pastor;  Br.  John 
Smith,  Delegate. 

Third  Church,  Danvers. — Rev.  Richard  Tolman,  Pastor ;  Dea.  Frederick 
Howe,  Delegate. 


59 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  Moderator. 

The  Committee  who  had  issued  the  letters  missive  presented  the  record  of 
proceedings  had  subsequent  to  the  vote  of  dissolution  passed  by  the  Church. 

The  records  of  the  Church  prior  to  the  vote  of  dissolution  were  read  by 
Mr.  Foster,  the  late  Clerk,  in  whose  hands  they  remain. 

The  Committee  were  fully  heard  on  the  subject  of  the  dissolution  of  the 
Church  ;  and  then  several  of  those  who  had  voted  with  the  majority  were 
heard  at  length.     The  people  then  retired. 

Voted,  That  the  members  of  the  Council  be  called  upon  to  express  their 
views  individually  on  the  case  as  it  stands  before  the  Council. 

The  members  were  nearly  unanimous  in  the  opinion  that  it  is  not  com- 
petent for  a  Church  to  dissolve  itself  by  the  vote  of  a  majority,  depriving 
individuals  of  their  covenant  rights  and  privileges  without  their  consent. 
"We  are  of  opinion,  therefore,  that  this  Church  is  not  disbanded  and  those 
members  that  remain  ought  to  sustain  the  rights  and  responsibilities  of  the 
Church.  And  they  should  humble  themselves  before  God,  and  confess  their 
faults  one  to  another,  and  pray  one  for  another,  until  they  come  to  be  of  one 
mind,  so  that  the  Spirit  may  come  down  upon  them  from  on  high  as  in 
times  past.  Thus  may  the  Howard  Street  Church  be  maintained  to  the 
honor  of  religion  and  the  salvation  of  many  souls. 

Voted  unanimously  that  the  above  be  accepted  as  the  result  of  this 
Council. 

(Signed)  Joshua  Leavitt,  Scribe. 

Note.— The  Rev.  Mr.  Tolman,  of  Danvers,  was  the  member  alluded  to  above  as  at  first 
dissenting.  He  told  a  brother  in  the  Church  the  same  afternoon  in  returning  home 
from  the  Council,  that  previous  to  the  discussions  of  the  Council  in  private  session  he 
•was  of  the  opinion  that  a  majority  vote  could  disband  a  Church,  but  after  hearing  the 
discussion  of  the  question  by  the  members,  he  gave  in  and  voted  with  them. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Church  held  in  the  vestry  on  Wednesday  evening, 
June  16th,  after  the  result  of  Council  was  read  to  the  Church,  it  was 

Voted,  That  the  report  of  the  Council  be  accepted  and  recorded  in  tho 
records  of  the  Church,  and  also  be  published. 


No.  15. 
CHURCHES  COMPOSING  THE  INSTALLING  COUNCIL. 

The  following  is  a  list  of  the  churches  represented  in  the  Council  at  the 
installation  of  Rev.  M.  H.  Wilder  as  pastor  of  the  Howard  Street  Church 
and   Society,  July  10th,  1849. 

Third  Congregational  Church,  Salem.— Rev.  Dr.  Emerson,  Pastor. 

Church  in  East  Bradford.— Rev.  Dr.  Perry,  Pastor ;  Dea.  Ira  Hopldn- 
son,  Delegate. 

First  Church  in  Braintree.— Rev.  Dr.  Storrs,  Pastor ;  Br.  John  Wild, 
Delegate. 

South  Church,  Ipswich.— Rev.  Mr.  Fits,  Pastor;  Josiah  Kimball, 
Delegate. 


60 

Second  Evangelical  Congregational  Church,  Cambridgeport. — Rev.  J.  C. 
Lovejoy,  Pastor  ;  Alfred  H.  Orcutt,  Delegate. 

Park  Street  Church,  Boston. — Rev.  A.  L.  Stone,  Pastor ;  Dea.  Edwin 
Lamson,  Delegate. 

Third  Congregational  Church,  Danvers. — Rev.  James  Fletcher,  Pastor ; 
Br.  Nathan  Tapley,  Delegate. 

Dane  Street  Church,  Beverly. — Br.  Israel  Trask,  Delegate. 

First  Congregational  Church,  Manchester. — Br.  Henry  Kitfield,  Delegate. 

Bethesda  Church,  Reading. — Br.  David  Emerson,  Delegate. 

Church  in  Hopkinton. — Rev.  J.  C.  Webster,  Pastor;  Br.  S.  D.  Daven- 
port, Delegate. 
.   Church  in  West  Medway. — Rev.  Dr.  Ide. 


No.  16. 
LETTER  OF   DR.   OSGOOD. 

Springfield,  Dec.  13,  1849. 

Dear  Brother : — I  received  your  kind  letter  of  the  10th,  and  I  sincerely 
regret  that  it  is  impracticable  for  me  to  be  present  at  the  adjourned  council. 
It  would  give  me  great  pleasure  to  meet  so  noble  a  Phalanx  of  Congrega- 
tional brethren,  as  are  on  that  council.  I  wrote  to  Mr.  Goss  at  first,  stating 
the  inconvenience  under  which  I  should  labor,  and  desired  him  to  make  my 
excuse  to  the  brethren,  intimating,  at  the  same  time,  that  I  would  have 
consented,  but  for  the  fact  that  they  had  a  very  large  and  efficient  council 
without  me.  I  never  have  declined  a  clear  course  of  duty,  and  would  not 
in  the  present  instance,  but  I  have  made  such  arrangements  that  I  cannot 
be  with  you  without  making  a  sacrifice  which  I  do  not  deem  to  be  necessary. 
My  counsel  is  not  needed  to  strengthen  any  position,  which  I  presume  this 
large  and  respectable  and  clear-sighted  body  would  probably  assume.  I 
fully  agree  with  you,  that  no  church  should  be  crushed,  which  can  sustain 
the  ministry.  A  minority  have  ecclesiastical  rights  as  well  as  a  majority. 
If  they  desire  to  keep  their  organization,  why  should  they  be  compelled,  by 
stronger  bodies,  to  abandon  it  ?  I  recollect  the  case  of  the  church  in  Kings- 
ton, N.  H.,  under  the  venerable  Dr.  Thayer,  in  which  I  think  there  was 
but  one  male  member  and  about  twelve  females ;  and  when  the  sacrament 
was  to  be  administered,  in  one  instance  at  least,  a  deacon  of  a  sister  church 
was  invited  to  officiate.  That  church  lived,  and  soon  after  the  death  of  the 
good  pastor,  the  seed  he  had  planted  for  half  a  century  or  less,  sprung  up  in 
a  glorious  revival.  I  do  not  understand  why  the  sister  churches  wish  to 
cast  this  church  out  of  the  family  of  our  Lord.  I  have  full  confidence  in 
that  promise,  "  if  any  man  lack  wisdom,  let  him  ask  it  of  God,"  &c.  I  feel 
that  the  great  Head  of  the  church  will  be  with  his  ministers,  will  lead  them 
into  all  truth,  and  make  their  decision,  whatever  it  shall  be,  the  means  of 
promoting  the  glory  of  his  name,  and  the  good  of  his  kingdom. 

Present  my  affectionate  regards  to  the  brethren,  and  accept  the  assurance 
of  my  confidence  in  yourself  and  all  connected  with  you. 

Rev.  Dr.  E.  Beecher.  Saml.  Osgood. 


PHOTOMOUNT 
PAMPHLET  BINDER 

MarmfactufJ  by 

\  ©AYLORO  BROS.  Im. 

fyi*<uf,  N.  Y. 

Stocfcton,  G»M. 


h , 

I 

ij>kl 

LjJ 

■ 

mj 

| 

?■ 

\£  111 

